静态中情局技术的比较研究

Xiaobing Sun, Bin Li, Bixin Li, Wanzhi Wen
{"title":"静态中情局技术的比较研究","authors":"Xiaobing Sun, Bin Li, Bixin Li, Wanzhi Wen","doi":"10.1145/2430475.2430498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Software Change Impact Analysis (CIA) is an essential technique to identify the unpredicted and potential effects caused by software changes. A rich body of different CIA techniques, especially static CIA techniques, have continuously emerged in recent years. However, it is difficult for researchers or practitioners to decide which technique is most appropriate for their needs, or which CIA technique is more effective. Unfortunately, there was only a few work on the comparison of the CIA techniques. This paper presents a comparison study of different types of popular static CIA approaches, i.e., structural static analysis, textual analysis, and historical analysis. For each kind of static CIA approach, we introduce a representative technique, that is FCA -- CIA, ROSE, and IRC2M, respectively. Finally, some empirical studies are conducted on three real-world programs to compare the accuracy of these CIA techniques based on the precision and recall metrics. The results show that the accuracy of these three CIA techniques is different, and FCA - CIA has the best precision while the IRC2M has the best recall.","PeriodicalId":20631,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 8th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative study of static CIA techniques\",\"authors\":\"Xiaobing Sun, Bin Li, Bixin Li, Wanzhi Wen\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2430475.2430498\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Software Change Impact Analysis (CIA) is an essential technique to identify the unpredicted and potential effects caused by software changes. A rich body of different CIA techniques, especially static CIA techniques, have continuously emerged in recent years. However, it is difficult for researchers or practitioners to decide which technique is most appropriate for their needs, or which CIA technique is more effective. Unfortunately, there was only a few work on the comparison of the CIA techniques. This paper presents a comparison study of different types of popular static CIA approaches, i.e., structural static analysis, textual analysis, and historical analysis. For each kind of static CIA approach, we introduce a representative technique, that is FCA -- CIA, ROSE, and IRC2M, respectively. Finally, some empirical studies are conducted on three real-world programs to compare the accuracy of these CIA techniques based on the precision and recall metrics. The results show that the accuracy of these three CIA techniques is different, and FCA - CIA has the best precision while the IRC2M has the best recall.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20631,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 8th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 8th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2430475.2430498\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 8th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2430475.2430498","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

软件变更影响分析(CIA)是识别由软件变更引起的不可预测和潜在影响的基本技术。近年来,大量不同的CIA技术,特别是静态CIA技术不断涌现。然而,研究人员或从业人员很难决定哪种技术最适合他们的需要,或者哪种中情局技术更有效。不幸的是,只有很少的工作对中情局的技术进行比较。本文对目前流行的几种静态中情局方法进行了比较研究,即结构静态分析、文本分析和历史分析。对于每种静态CIA方法,我们分别介绍了一种具有代表性的技术,即FCA—CIA、ROSE和IRC2M。最后,在三个现实世界的程序中进行了一些实证研究,以比较这些CIA技术基于精度和召回率指标的准确性。结果表明,三种CIA技术的准确率存在差异,其中FCA - CIA的准确率最高,IRC2M的召回率最高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A comparative study of static CIA techniques
Software Change Impact Analysis (CIA) is an essential technique to identify the unpredicted and potential effects caused by software changes. A rich body of different CIA techniques, especially static CIA techniques, have continuously emerged in recent years. However, it is difficult for researchers or practitioners to decide which technique is most appropriate for their needs, or which CIA technique is more effective. Unfortunately, there was only a few work on the comparison of the CIA techniques. This paper presents a comparison study of different types of popular static CIA approaches, i.e., structural static analysis, textual analysis, and historical analysis. For each kind of static CIA approach, we introduce a representative technique, that is FCA -- CIA, ROSE, and IRC2M, respectively. Finally, some empirical studies are conducted on three real-world programs to compare the accuracy of these CIA techniques based on the precision and recall metrics. The results show that the accuracy of these three CIA techniques is different, and FCA - CIA has the best precision while the IRC2M has the best recall.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Internetware 2022: 13th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware, Hohhot, China, June 11 - 12, 2022 Internetware'20: 12th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware, Singapore, November 1-3, 2020 Internetware '19: The 11th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware, Fukuoka, Japan, October 28-29, 2019 RepoLike: personal repositories recommendation in social coding communities Effa: a proM plugin for recovering event logs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1