A Nonlinear Weight-Optimized Maintainability Index of Software Metrics by Grey Wolf Optimization

A Nonlinear Weight-Optimized Maintainability Index of Software Metrics by Grey Wolf Optimization

Gokul Yenduri, Veeranjaneyulu Naralasetti
Copyright: © 2021 |Pages: 21
DOI: 10.4018/IJSIR.2021040101
OnDemand:
(Individual Articles)
Available
$37.50
No Current Special Offers
TOTAL SAVINGS: $37.50

Abstract

Maintainability index (MI) is a software metric that offers measurements of the maintainability before release of the software by facilitating several substantial features of the system. In general, there is a common formula for determining the MI for all the software metrics to ensure the system's reliability. As it does not provide appropriate results regarding the reliability of the system, it is essential to focus on the next level of MI of software. Hence, this paper intends to allot an optimal weight and a constant to each software metric, which is optimized by grey wolf optimization (GWO). As a result, it can provide a new variant of MI by proposed enhanced model-GWO (EM-GWO). This optimized MI can ensure the efficiency of the respective software in such a way that it can provide an enhanced score from the system. Further, the proposed method is compared with conventional models such as enhanced model-generic algorithm (EM-GA), EM-particle swarm optimization (PSO), EM-ant bee colony (ABC), EM-differential evolution (DE), and EM-fire fly (FF), and the results are obtained.
Article Preview
Top

1. Introduction

The standard ISO/IEC9126 is described as the “capability or maintainability of the software product to be modified, including adaptation or improvements, corrections of the software to changes in the environment and in requirements and functional specifications”. Assuming object-oriented software for maintainability by deploying several software metrics has reached a major advantage since it reduces the upcoming predicament in maintenance and therefore improves the effectiveneaa of the model by providing details for much-enhanced planning of several resources (Kumar & Ku, 2016) (Chen et al., 2017). Software defect prediction (SDP) is a major decision enhancing course in the quality assistance of software for critical and large software systems. Its goal is to enhance the position of checking resources that include costs by identifying defect-prone software constituents in advance (Mauša & Grbac, 2017).

A ‘software quality model (SQM)’ is designed for defining the numerous exterior attributes which are much assessed by the stakeholders based on their level of significance (Ahmed & Al-Jamimi, 2013). As a result, it is general for software to turn out to be insubstantial, difficult and complex significantly to manage (Chun & Lee, 2015). Even if applications of engineering exist, their ability to set damaged data from OSS and proprietary software projects are not well learned (Rana et al., 2016). Even though much-improved research attempts have been dedicated to the software metrics model, count data regression research was further restricted (Andreou & Chatzis, 2016) (He et al., 2015). Further, it is not feasible to assume the benchmark test comprised in the scheme (Zeeshan Ali Rana, 2015). As SQM is a major process (Elish & Elish, 2008) (Kara et al., 2016) (Sheoran et al., 2016)[13], the object-based paradigm is modeled by constructing software constituents with enhanced modularity to build up total maintainability (Li & Liu, 1995) (Dillon & Chang, 1994). However, the software requires uninterrupted maintenance and variation to adjust with novel business technologies and norms. Precise prediction of software issues is of needed importance in the field of software engineering (Sosnowski et al., 2017) (Costa et al., 2017) (Chen & Huang, 2009).

SDP comprises of two significant steps: (a) designing of software metrics to symbolize applications and (b) allowing for the clear assumption of the number of software problems and enhancements of effectual regression models for count data. SDP acts a major role in calculating the major defect-prone software elements (Gopalakrishnan Nair & Selvarani, 2012) (Succi et al., 2003) (Oyetoyan et al., 2013), and various investigations have been carried out for improving the precision in assumption across several projects or in a project. Various experiments are done on assumption methods such as, Naive Bayes (NB) (Youngjoong, 2017) (Zhang et al., 2017), Logistic Regression (Kazakevičiūtė & Olivo, 2017) (Donnelly & Verkuilen, 2017), cross-project defect prediction (CPDP) (Ryu & Baik, 2016) (Hosseini et al., 2017), Bayesian network classifiers (Wang et al., 2016) (Jiang et al., 2014) etc. However, the directions for deriving a precise decision among within- and cross-project damaged assumptions when historical data which is present are not clear and are deficit (He et al., 2015) (Huang & Liu, 2016). In addition, the existence of random benchmarks is not much learned (Zeeshan Ali Rana, 2015).

This paper contributes a new MI formula using EM-GWO for software reliability checking. The MI achieved by a recommended formula has to be nearer to the MI attained from the standard formula, i.e., the variance among them must be less, so that, the MI can be achieved with a reduced error that is considered as the objective function of this paper. Furthermore, the suggested technique is compared with traditional schemes such as EM-GA, EM-PSO, EM-ABC, EM-DE and EM-FF and the results are attained. The paper is organized as follows. Section II describes the related works and reviews done under this topic. Section III demonstrates the software metrics suited to predicting MI. Section IV explains the MI determination, and section V portrays the generating MI model by the GWO algorithm. Section VI describes the simulation procedure. Section VII discusses the results and discussions, and Section VIII concludes the paper.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 15: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 14: 3 Issues (2023)
Volume 13: 4 Issues (2022)
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2010)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing