ITM Web Conf.
Volume 54, 20232nd International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication and Security (I3CS-2023)
|Number of page(s)||10|
|Published online||04 July 2023|
- I. Candela, G. Bavota, B. Russo, and R. Oliveto, “Using cohesion and coupling for software remodularization: Is it enough?,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1–28, 2016. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- A. Rathee and J. K. Chhabra, “Software remodularization by estimating structural and conceptual relations among classes and using hierarchical clustering,” in International Conference on Advanced Informatics for Computing Research, 2017, pp. 94–106: Springer. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- G. Bavota, A. De Lucia, A. Marcus, and R. Oliveto, “Software re-modularization based on structural and semantic metrics,” in 2010 17th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, 2010, pp. 195–204: IEEE. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- M. S. Zanetti, C. J. Tessone, I. Scholtes, and F. Schweitzer, “Automated software remodularization based on move refactoring: a complex systems approach,” in Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Modularity, 2014, pp. 73–84. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- G. Santos, M. T. Valente, and N. Anquetil, “Remodularization analysis using semantic clustering,” in 2014 Software Evolution Week-IEEE Conference on Software Maintenance, Reengineering, and Reverse Engineering (CSMR-WCRE), 2014, pp. 224–233: IEEE. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- M. Aghdasifam, H. Izadkhah, and A. Isazadeh, “A new metaheuristic-based hierarchical clustering algorithm for software modularization,” Complexity, vol. 2020, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- L. M. Hakik and R. El Harti, “Measuring Coupling and Cohesion to Evaluate the Quality of a Remodularized Software Architecture Result of an Approach Based on Formal Concept Analysis,” International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security (IJCSNS), vol. 14, no. 1, p. 11, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- C. Schröder, A. van der Feltz, A. Panichella, and M. Aniche, “Search-based software re- modularization: a case study at Adyen,” in 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP), 2021, pp. 81–90. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- J. K. Chhabra, “Harmony search based remodularization for object-oriented software systems,” Computer Languages, Systems & Structures, vol. 47, pp. 153–169, 2017. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- R. Mahouachi, “Search-based cost-effective software remodularization,” Journal of Computer Science and Technology, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1320–1336, 2018. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- G. Bavota, F. Carnevale, A. D. Lucia, M. D. Penta, and R. Oliveto, “Putting the developer in-the-loop: an interactive GA for software re-modularization,” in International Symposium on Search Based Software Engineering, 2012, pp. 75–89: Springer. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- J. Hwa, S. Yoo, Y.-S. Seo, and D.-H. Bae, “Search-based approaches for software module clustering based on multiple relationship factors,” International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 27, no. 07, pp. 1033–1062, 2017. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- W. Mkaouer et al., “Many-objective software remodularization using NSGA-III,” ACM Transactions on Software Engg. and Methodology (TOSEM), vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1–45, 2015. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- L. Mu, V. Sugumaran, and F. Wang, “A hybrid genetic algorithm for software architecture re-modularization,” Information Systems Frontiers, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1133–1161, 2020. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- N. Sadat Jalali, H. Izadkhah, and S. Lotfi, “Multi-objective search-based software modularization: structural and non-structural features,” Soft Computing, vol. 23, no. 21, pp. 11141–11165, 2019. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- A. Prajapati, A. Parashar, and A. Rathee, “Multi-dimensional information-driven many- objective software remodularization approach,” Frontiers of Computer Science, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 1–18, 2023. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- K. Petersen, R. Feldt, S. Mujtaba, and M. Mattsson, “Systematic mapping studies in software engineering,” in 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE) 12, 2008, pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- B. Kitchenham, O. P. Brereton, D. Budgen, M. Turner, J. Bailey, and S. Linkman, “Systematic literature reviews in software engineering-a systematic literature review,” Information and software technology, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 7–15, 2009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- V. Kumar, J. K. Chhabra, and D. Kumar, “Performance evaluation of distance metrics in the clustering algorithms,” INFOCOMP Journal of Computer Sci, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 38–52, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- G. Bavota, M. Di Penta, and R. Oliveto, “Search based software maintenance: Methods and tools,” in Evolving software systems: Springer, 2014, pp. 103–137. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- H. Abdeen, S. Ducasse, H. Sahraoui, and I. Alloui, “Automatic package coupling and cycle minimization,” in 2009 16th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, 2009, pp. 103–112: IEEE. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- A. Prajapati, A. Parashar, and J. K. Chhabra, “Restructuring Object-oriented software systems using various aspects of class information,” Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 10433–10457, 2020. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- A. Prajapati and J. K. Chhabra, “MaDHS: Many-objective discrete harmony search to improve existing package design,” Computational Intelligence, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 98–123, 2019. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
- A. Prajapati, “Software package restructuring with improved search-based optimization and objective functions,” Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 9023–9043, 2021. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.