Advertisement

Multi-objective Improvement of Software Using Co-evolution and Smart Seeding

  • Andrea Arcuri
  • David Robert White
  • John Clark
  • Xin Yao
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5361)

Abstract

Optimising non-functional properties of software is an important part of the implementation process. One such property is execution time, and compilers target a reduction in execution time using a variety of optimisation techniques. Compiler optimisation is not always able to produce semantically equivalent alternatives that improve execution times, even if such alternatives are known to exist. Often, this is due to the local nature of such optimisations. In this paper we present a novel framework for optimising existing software using a hybrid of evolutionary optimisation techniques. Given as input the implementation of a program or function, we use Genetic Programming to evolve a new semantically equivalent version, optimised to reduce execution time subject to a given probability distribution of inputs. We employ a co-evolved population of test cases to encourage the preservation of the program’s semantics, and exploit the original program through seeding of the population in order to focus the search. We carry out experiments to identify the important factors in maximising efficiency gains. Although in this work we have optimised execution time, other non-functional criteria could be optimised in a similar manner.

Keywords

Pareto Front Original Program Gain Score Test Data Generation Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Koza, J.R.: Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arcuri, A., Yao, X.: Coevolving programs and unit tests from their specification. In: IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 397–400 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arcuri, A., Yao, X.: A novel co-evolutionary approach to automatic software bug fixing. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), pp. 162–168 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Langdon, W.B., Nordin, P.: Seeding genetic programming populations. In: Poli, R., Banzhaf, W., Langdon, W.B., Miller, J., Nordin, P., Fogarty, T.C. (eds.) EuroGP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1802, pp. 304–315. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reformat, M., Xinwei, C., Miller, J.: On the possibilities of (pseudo-) software cloning from external interactions. Soft Computing 12(1), 29–49 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hillis, W.D.: Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure. Physica D 42(1-3), 228–234 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Myers, G.: The Art of Software Testing. Wiley, New York (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Binkert, N., Dreslinski, R., Hsu, L., Lim, K., Saidi, A., Reinhardt, S.: The M5 simulator: Modeling networked systems. IEEE Micro. 26(4), 52–60 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    White, D.R., Clark, J., Jacob, J., Poulding, S.: Searching for Resource-Efficient Programs: Low-Power Pseudorandom Number Generators. In: GECCO 2008: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 1775–1782 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M., Thiele, L.: SPEA2: Improving the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm. Technical Report 103, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arcuri, A., Lehre, P.K., Yao, X.: Theoretical runtime analyses of search algorithms on the test data generation for the triangle classification problem. In: International Workshop on Search-Based Software Testing (SBST), pp. 161–169 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McMinn, P.: Search-based software test data generation: A survey. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability 14(2), 105–156 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller, J., Reformat, M., Zhang, H.: Automatic test data generation using genetic algorithm and program dependence graphs. Info. and Software Technology 48(7), 586–605 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ECJ: Evolutionary computation in Java, http://www.cs.gmu.edu/~eclab/projects/ecj/
  15. 15.
    Montana, D.J.: Strongly typed GP. Evolutionary Computation 3(2), 199–230 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Montgomery, D.C.: Design and Analysis of Experiments. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Langdon, W.B., Poli, R.: Foundations of Genetic Programming. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Arcuri
    • 1
  • David Robert White
    • 2
  • John Clark
    • 2
  • Xin Yao
    • 1
  1. 1.The Centre of Excellence for Research in Computational Intelligence and Applications (CERCIA), The School of Computer ScienceThe University of BirminghamEdgbastonUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkUK

Personalised recommendations