Csmr wcre14.ppt
0 likes29 views
The document proposes using game theory to refactor object-oriented software by modeling the refactoring problem as a non-cooperative game between players who each extract one class from a "blob" class. The goal of each player is to maximize the cohesion of their extracted class while maintaining low coupling. An example 2-player game is presented and analyzed. An empirical study found the game theory approach improved class metrics like LCOM by over 70% compared to baseline refactoring techniques and received higher qualitative ratings than the baselines from student evaluators.
Csmr wcre14.ppt
- 1. In Medio Stat Virtus: Extract Class Refactoring through Nash Equilibria Gabriele Bavota, Rocco Oliveto, Andrea De Lucia, Andrian Marcus, Yann-Gael Guéhéneuc, Giuliano Antoniol
- 3. GameTheory
- 4. Game Theory A game consits of: a set of players a set of moves available to those players payoffs for each combination of moves A branch of mathematics, capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual’s success in making choices depends on the choices of others
- 5. Game Theory A game consits of: a set of players a set of moves available to those players payoffs for each combination of moves A branch of mathematics, capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual’s success in making choices depends on the choices of others
- 6. Game Theory A game consits of: a set of players a set of moves available to those players payoffs for each combination of moves A branch of mathematics, capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual’s success in making choices depends on the choices of others
- 7. Game Theory A game consits of: a set of players a set of moves available to those players payoffs for each combination of moves A branch of mathematics, capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual’s success in making choices depends on the choices of others
- 11. CONFESS NOT CONFESS TOM SALLY CONFESS NOT CONFESS The prisoner’s dilemma
- 12. CONFESS NOT CONFESS TOM SALLY CONFESS NOT CONFESS 5,5 0,7 7,0 4,4 The prisoner’s dilemma
- 13. CONFESS NOT CONFESS TOM SALLY CONFESS NOT CONFESS 5,5 0,7 7,0 4,4 The prisoner’s dilemma 0,7 7,0 4,4
- 14. CONFESS NOT CONFESS TOM SALLY CONFESS NOT CONFESS 5,5 0,7 7,0 4,4 The prisoner’s dilemma 0,7 7,0
- 15. CONFESS NOT CONFESS TOM SALLY CONFESS NOT CONFESS 5,5 0,7 7,0 4,4 The prisoner’s dilemma
- 16. CONFESS NOT CONFESS TOM SALLY CONFESS NOT CONFESS 5,5 0,7 7,0 4,4 The prisoner’s dilemma 5,5
- 18. Contrasting Goals Pursuing high cohesion and low coupling in object oriented systems
- 19. Contrasting Goals Pursuing high cohesion and low coupling in object oriented systems Bug triageing, Test Case generation, ...
- 20. Contrasting Goals Pursuing high cohesion and low coupling in object oriented systems Bug triageing, Test Case generation, ... Software engineering is the art of compromise...
- 22. Extract Class Refactoring Splitting a class with many responsibilities into different classes Input Class C BLOB Class C1 Output Class C2
- 24. A non-cooperative game between n players
- 25. A non-cooperative game between n players Each player is in charge of extracting one class from the Blob
- 26. A non-cooperative game between n players Each player is in charge of extracting one class from the Blob Each player seeks to maximize its cohesion while maintaining its coupling as low as possible
- 27. 2-players game TOM SALLY m5 m1 m2 m3 m4 N m2 m3 m4 N -1.00, -1.00 -0.49, -0.24 -0.70, -0.80 -0.20, 0.00 0.49, 0.22 -1.00, -1.00 -0.21, -0.58 0.29, 0.22 0.70, 0.80 0.21, 0.58 -1.00, -1.00 0.50, -0.80 0.70, 0.50 0.21, 0.28 0.00, -0.30 -1.00, -1.00
- 28. 2-players game TOM SALLY m5 m1 m2 m3 m4 N m2 m3 m4 N -1.00, -1.00 -0.49, -0.24 -0.70, -0.80 -0.20, 0.00 0.49, 0.22 -1.00, -1.00 -0.21, -0.58 0.29, 0.22 0.70, 0.80 0.21, 0.58 -1.00, -1.00 0.50, -0.80 0.70, 0.50 0.21, 0.28 0.00, -0.30 -1.00, -1.00
- 29. 2-players game TOM SALLY m5 m1 m2 m3 m4 N m2 m3 m4 N -1.00, -1.00 -0.49, -0.24 -0.70, -0.80 -0.20, 0.00 0.49, 0.22 -1.00, -1.00 -0.21, -0.58 0.29, 0.22 0.70, 0.80 0.21, 0.58 -1.00, -1.00 0.50, -0.80 0.70, 0.50 0.21, 0.28 0.00, -0.30 -1.00, -1.00
- 30. 2-players game TOM SALLY m5 m1 m2 m3 m4 N m2 m3 m4 N -1.00, -1.00 -0.49, -0.24 -0.70, -0.80 -0.20, 0.00 0.49, 0.22 -1.00, -1.00 -0.21, -0.58 0.29, 0.22 0.70, 0.80 0.21, 0.58 -1.00, -1.00 0.50, -0.80 0.70, 0.50 0.21, 0.28 0.00, -0.30 -1.00, -1.00 0.70 = sim(m1, m2) - sim(m1, m4)
- 31. 2-players game TOM SALLY m5 m1 m2 m3 m4 N m2 m3 m4 N -1.00, -1.00 -0.49, -0.24 -0.70, -0.80 -0.20, 0.00 0.49, 0.22 -1.00, -1.00 -0.21, -0.58 0.29, 0.22 0.70, 0.80 0.21, 0.58 -1.00, -1.00 0.50, -0.80 0.70, 0.50 0.21, 0.28 0.00, -0.30 -1.00, -1.00 0.70 = sim(m1, m2) - sim(m1, m4) COHESION
- 32. 2-players game TOM SALLY m5 m1 m2 m3 m4 N m2 m3 m4 N -1.00, -1.00 -0.49, -0.24 -0.70, -0.80 -0.20, 0.00 0.49, 0.22 -1.00, -1.00 -0.21, -0.58 0.29, 0.22 0.70, 0.80 0.21, 0.58 -1.00, -1.00 0.50, -0.80 0.70, 0.50 0.21, 0.28 0.00, -0.30 -1.00, -1.00 0.70 = sim(m1, m2) - sim(m1, m4) COHESION COUPLING
- 33. 2-players game TOM SALLY m5 m1 m2 m3 m4 N m2 m3 m4 N -1.00, -1.00 -0.49, -0.24 -0.70, -0.80 -0.20, 0.00 0.49, 0.22 -1.00, -1.00 -0.21, -0.58 0.29, 0.22 0.70, 0.80 0.21, 0.58 -1.00, -1.00 0.50, -0.80 0.70, 0.50 0.21, 0.28 0.00, -0.30 -1.00, -1.00
- 34. 2-players game TOM SALLY m5 m1 m2 m3 m4 N m2 m3 m4 N -1.00, -1.00 -0.49, -0.24 -0.70, -0.80 -0.20, 0.00 0.49, 0.22 -1.00, -1.00 -0.21, -0.58 0.29, 0.22 0.70, 0.80 0.21, 0.58 -1.00, -1.00 0.50, -0.80 0.70, 0.50 0.21, 0.28 0.00, -0.30 -1.00, -1.00
- 35. 2-players game TOM SALLY m5 m1 m2 m3 m4 N m2 m3 m4 N -1.00, -1.00 -0.49, -0.24 -0.70, -0.80 -0.20, 0.00 0.49, 0.22 -1.00, -1.00 -0.21, -0.58 0.29, 0.22 0.70, 0.80 0.21, 0.58 -1.00, -1.00 0.50, -0.80 0.70, 0.50 0.21, 0.28 0.00, -0.30 -1.00, -1.00
- 36. 2-players game TOM SALLY m5 m1 m3 N m2 m3 m4 N -1.00, -1.00 0.39, 0.32 0.19, 0.25 -1.00, -1.00 m2 -1.00, -1.00 -0.49, -0.24 -0.70, -0.80 -0.20, 0.00 m4 0.21, 0.58 -1.00, -1.00 0.50, -0.80 0.49, 0.22 -0.21, -0.58 0.70, 0.50 0.00, -0.30 m2 m4 0.70, 0.80
- 37. 2-players game TOM SALLY m5 m1 m3 N m2 m3 m4 N -1.00, -1.00 0.39, 0.32 0.19, 0.25 -1.00, -1.00 m2 -1.00, -1.00 -0.49, -0.24 -0.70, -0.80 -0.20, 0.00 m4 0.21, 0.58 -1.00, -1.00 0.50, -0.80 0.49, 0.22 -0.21, -0.58 0.70, 0.50 0.00, -0.30 m2 m4 0.70, 0.80
- 38. 2-players game TOM SALLY m5 m1 m3 N m2 m3 m4 N -1.00, -1.00 0.39, 0.32 0.19, 0.25 -1.00, -1.00 m2 -1.00, -1.00 -0.49, -0.24 -0.70, -0.80 -0.20, 0.00 m4 0.21, 0.58 -1.00, -1.00 0.50, -0.80 0.49, 0.22 -0.21, -0.58 0.70, 0.50 0.00, -0.30 m2 m4 0.70, 0.80
- 40. Study Design
- 43. LCOM +72%
- 45. LCOM C3 MPC +72% +118% +1%
- 47. Subjects 2 PhD and 6 Master students Objects The 7 Blobs of the metric evaluation What we asked Agreement to the claim: “The proposed refactoring results in an appropriate division of responsibilities” Five point Likert scale: “1: Strongly disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Neutral; 4: Agree; 5: Fully agree” Baselines We refactored the 7 Blobs using: our approach, k-means, and a random splitting.
- 48. 5 4 3 2 1 Game Theory k-means Random
- 49. Conclusion
- 60. ?