IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joheur/v27y2021i1d10.1007_s10732-020-09462-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

CMSA algorithm for solving the prioritized pairwise test data generation problem in software product lines

Author

Listed:
  • Javier Ferrer

    (Universidad de Málaga)

  • Francisco Chicano

    (Universidad de Málaga)

  • José Antonio Ortega-Toro

    (VirusTotal)

Abstract

In Software Product Lines, it may be difficult or even impossible to test all the products of the family because of the large number of valid feature combinations that may exist (Ferrer et al. in: Squillero, Sim (eds) EvoApps 2017, LNCS 10200, Springer, The Netherlands, pp 3–19, 2017). Thus, we want to find a minimal subset of the product family that allows us to test all these possible combinations (pairwise). Furthermore, when testing a single product is a great effort, it is desirable to first test products composed of a set of priority features. This problem is called Prioritized Pairwise Test Data Generation Problem. State-of-the-art algorithms based on Integer Linear Programming for this problem are faster enough for small and medium instances. However, there exists some real instances that are too large to be computed with these algorithms in a reasonable time because of the exponential growth of the number of candidate solutions. Also, these heuristics not always lead us to the best solutions. In this work we propose a new approach based on a hybrid metaheuristic algorithm called Construct, Merge, Solve & Adapt. We compare this matheuristic with four algorithms: a Hybrid algorithm based on Integer Linear Programming, a Hybrid algorithm based on Integer Nonlinear Programming, the Parallel Prioritized Genetic Solver, and a greedy algorithm called prioritized-ICPL. The analysis reveals that CMSA is statistically significantly better in terms of quality of solutions in most of the instances and for most levels of weighted coverage, although it requires more execution time.

Suggested Citation

  • Javier Ferrer & Francisco Chicano & José Antonio Ortega-Toro, 2021. "CMSA algorithm for solving the prioritized pairwise test data generation problem in software product lines," Journal of Heuristics, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 229-249, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joheur:v:27:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10732-020-09462-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10732-020-09462-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10732-020-09462-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10732-020-09462-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kerstin Dächert & Kathrin Klamroth, 2015. "A linear bound on the number of scalarizations needed to solve discrete tricriteria optimization problems," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 61(4), pages 643-676, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Konur, Dinçer & Campbell, James F. & Monfared, Sepideh A., 2017. "Economic and environmental considerations in a stochastic inventory control model with order splitting under different delivery schedules among suppliers," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 46-65.
    2. Tobias Kuhn & Stefan Ruzika, 2017. "A coverage-based Box-Algorithm to compute a representation for optimization problems with three objective functions," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 581-600, March.
    3. Kerstin Dächert & Ria Grindel & Elisabeth Leoff & Jonas Mahnkopp & Florian Schirra & Jörg Wenzel, 2022. "Multicriteria asset allocation in practice," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 44(2), pages 349-373, June.
    4. Doğan, Ilgın & Lokman, Banu & Köksalan, Murat, 2022. "Representing the nondominated set in multi-objective mixed-integer programs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 296(3), pages 804-818.
    5. Klamroth, Kathrin & Lacour, Renaud & Vanderpooten, Daniel, 2015. "On the representation of the search region in multi-objective optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(3), pages 767-778.
    6. Pham Thi Hoai & Hoai An Le Thi & Nguyen Canh Nam, 2021. "Half-open polyblock for the representation of the search region in multiobjective optimization problems: its application and computational aspects," 4OR, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 41-70, March.
    7. David Bergman & Merve Bodur & Carlos Cardonha & Andre A. Cire, 2022. "Network Models for Multiobjective Discrete Optimization," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 990-1005, March.
    8. Özarık, Sami Serkan & Lokman, Banu & Köksalan, Murat, 2020. "Distribution based representative sets for multi-objective integer programs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(2), pages 632-643.
    9. Diego Pecin & Ian Herszterg & Tyler Perini & Natashia Boland & Martin Savelsbergh, 2024. "A fast and robust algorithm for solving biobjective mixed integer programs," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 100(1), pages 221-262, August.
    10. Sergiy Butenko, 2016. "Journal of Global Optimization Best Paper Award for 2015," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 66(4), pages 595-596, December.
    11. Ozgu Turgut & Evrim Dalkiran & Alper E. Murat, 2019. "An exact parallel objective space decomposition algorithm for solving multi-objective integer programming problems," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 35-62, September.
    12. Dächert, Kerstin & Klamroth, Kathrin & Lacour, Renaud & Vanderpooten, Daniel, 2017. "Efficient computation of the search region in multi-objective optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(3), pages 841-855.
    13. Nathan Adelgren & Akshay Gupte, 2022. "Branch-and-Bound for Biobjective Mixed-Integer Linear Programming," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 909-933, March.
    14. William Pettersson & Melih Ozlen, 2020. "Multiobjective Integer Programming: Synergistic Parallel Approaches," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 461-472, April.
    15. Kerstin Dächert & Tino Fleuren & Kathrin Klamroth, 2024. "A simple, efficient and versatile objective space algorithm for multiobjective integer programming," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 100(1), pages 351-384, August.
    16. Ceyhan, Gökhan & Köksalan, Murat & Lokman, Banu, 2019. "Finding a representative nondominated set for multi-objective mixed integer programs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(1), pages 61-77.
    17. Dal Sasso, Veronica & Djeumou Fomeni, Franklin & Lulli, Guglielmo & Zografos, Konstantinos G., 2018. "Incorporating Stakeholders’ priorities and preferences in 4D trajectory optimization," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 117(PA), pages 594-609.
    18. Dinçer Konur & Hadi Farhangi & Cihan H. Dagli, 2016. "A multi-objective military system of systems architecting problem with inflexible and flexible systems: formulation and solution methods," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 38(4), pages 967-1006, October.
    19. Kerstin Dächert & Sauleh Siddiqui & Javier Saez-Gallego & Steven A. Gabriel & Juan Miguel Morales, 2019. "A Bicriteria Perspective on L-Penalty Approaches – a Corrigendum to Siddiqui and Gabriel’s L-Penalty Approach for Solving MPECs," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1199-1214, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:joheur:v:27:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10732-020-09462-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.