research in software engineering

Ivano Malavolta

RESEARCH in software engineering

Roadmap

Software engineering research

Empirical strategies

Writing good research papers

Homework

Software engineering research

Some contents of this part of lecture extracted from Ivica Crnkovic’s lecture on software engineering research at Mälardalen University (Sweden)

What makes good research?

is it HARD? is it USEFUL?

is it ELEGANT?

These are all orthogonal and equally respectful

Very little chances that you will excel in all three axes

We are young researchers, don’t refuse usefulness, why limit your impact to dusty publications?

http://goo.gl/d1YM9v

My vision about research

Research

Theory Industrial projectsProgramming Experimentation

Ivano Malavolta. Research Statement. November 2013. http://goo.gl/99N5AS

The basic characteristic of SE

Real world practical PROBLEM

Real world practical SOLUTION

?

Research objectives

Key objectives

•  Quality àutility as well as functional correctness

•  Cost à both of development and of use

•  Timeliness à good-enough result, when it’s needed

Address problems that affect practical software



Research objectives: example

Example

Research strategy



Research setting IDEALIZED PROBLEM

Research setting SOLUTION to

IDEALIZED PROBLEM

Research product (technique, method, model, system, …)

Research product: example

Validation of the results





IDEALIZED PROBLEM


Validation task 1 Does the product solve the idealized problem?

Validation of the results





IDEALIZED PROBLEM



Validation task 2 Does the product help to solve the practical problem?

Validation of the results: example

SE research process

Research questions

Research validation

Research results

Types of research questions

FEASIBILITY

CHARACTERIZATION

METHOD/MEANS

GENERALIZATION

DISCRIMINATION

Does X exist, and what is it? Is it possible to do X at all? What are the characteristics of X? What exactly do we mean by X? What are the varieties of X, and how are they related?

How can we do X? What is a better way to do X? How can we automate doing X?

Is X always true of Y? Given X, what will Y be?

How do I decide whether X or Y?

Example: software architecture

The software architecture of a program or computing system is the structure or structures of the system, which comprise software components, the externally visible properties of those components and the relationships among them

L. Bass, P. Clements, R. Kazman, Software Architecture In Practise, Addison Wesley, 1998

System

subsystem Subsystem

component component component

Example: SA research questions

FEASIBILITY

CHARACTERIZATION

METHOD/MEANS

GENERALIZATION

DISCRIMINATION

Is it possible to automatically generate code from an architectural specification?

What are the important concepts for modeling software architectures?

How can we exploit domain knowledge to improve software development?

What patterns capture and explain a significant set of architectural constructs?

How can a designer make tradeoff choices among architectural alternatives?

SE research process

Research questions

Research results

Research validation

Research results





Types of research results QUALITATIVE & DESCRIPTIVE MODELS

TECHNIQUES

SYSTEM EMPIRICAL MODELS ANALYTIC MODELS

Report interesting observations Generalize from (real-life) examples Structure a problem area; ask good questions

Invent new ways to do some tasks, including implementation techniques Develop ways to select from alternatives

Embody result in a system, using the system both for insight and as carrier of results

Develop empirical predictive models from observed data

Develop structural models that permit formal analysis

Example: SA research results QUALITATIVE & DESCRIPTIVE MODELS

TECHNIQUES

SYSTEM EMPIRICAL MODELS ANALYTIC MODELS

Early architectural models Architectural patterns Domain-specific software architectures UML to support object-oriented design

Architectural languages Communication metrics as indicator of impact on project complexity Formal specification of higher-level architecture for simulation

SE research process

Research questions

Research results

Research validation

Research validation





IDEALIZED PROBLEM



Validation task 2 Does the result help to solve the practical problem?

Types of research validation PERSUASION

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION ANALYSIS

Formal model Empirical model

EXPERIENCE

Qualitative model Decision criteria Empirical model

I thought hard about this, and I believe…

Here is a prototype of a system that…

Given these criteria, the object rates as…

Given the facts, here are consequences…

Rigorous derivation and proof Data on use in controlled situation

Report on use in practice Narrative Comparison of systems in actual use Data, usually statistical, on practice

Example: SA research validation PERSUASION

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION ANALYSIS

Formal model Empirical model

EXPERIENCE

Qualitative model Decision criteria Empirical model

Early architectural models

Early architectural languages

Taxonomies, performance improvement

Formal schedulability analysis User interface structure

Architectural patterns Domain-specific architectures Communication and project complexity

“NO-NO”s for software engineering research

•  Assume that a result demonstrated fro a 10K-line system will scale to a 500K-line system

•  Expect everyone to do things “my way”

•  Believe functional correctness is sufficient

•  Assume the existence of a complete, consistent specification

•  Just build things without extracting enduring lessons

•  Devise a solution in ignorance of how the world really works

Building blocks for research

Feasibility

Characterization

Method/means

Generalization

Selection

Qualitative model

Technique

System

Empirical model

Analytic model

Persuasion

Implementation

Evaluation

Analysis

Experience

Question Result Validation

Is this a good plan?

Feasibility

Characterization

Method/means

Generalization

Selection

Qualitative model

Technique

System

Empirical model

Analytic model

Persuasion

Implementation

Evaluation

Analysis

Experience


A common good plan

Feasibility

Characterization

Can X be done better?

Generalization

Selection

Qualitative model

Technique

Build Y

Empirical model

Analytic model

Persuasion

Implementation

Measure Y, compare to X

Analysis

Experience


Is this a good plan?

Feasibility

Characterization

Method/means

Generalization

Selection

Qualitative model

Technique

System

Empirical model

Analytic model

Persuasion

Implementation

Evaluation

Analysis

Experience


A common, but bad, plan

Feasibility

Characterization

Method/means

Generalization

Selection

Qualitative model

Technique

System

Empirical model

Analytic model

Persuasion

Implementation

Evaluation

Analysis

Experience


Two other good plans

Can X be done at all?

Characterization

Is X always true of Y?

Selection

Qualitative model

Technique

Build a Y that does X

Empirical model

Formally model Y, prove X

“Look it works!”

Implementation

Check proof

Experience


Method/means Evaluation

How do you trust a research then?

1.  What are the problems from the real world? –  Are they general? –  What are the elements of them?

2.  Are the solutions general? What are their limits?



?

EMPIRICAL SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

Some contents of this part of lecture extracted from Matthias Galster ‘s tutorial titled “Introduction to Empirical Research Methodologies” at ECSA 2014

Empirical strategies*

*We will have a dedicated course on this topic

Empirical software engineering

Scientific use of quantitative and qualitative data to –  understand and –  improve

software products and software development processes Data is central to address any research question Issues related to validity addressed continuously

[Victor Basili]

Why empirical studies?

Anecdotal evidence or “common-sense” often not good enough

–  Anecdotes often insufficient to support decisions in the industry –  Practitioners need better advice on how and when to use

methodologies

Evidence important for successful technology transfer

–  systematic gathering of evidence –  wide dissemination of evidence

Dimensions of empirical studies

“In the lab” versus “in the wild” studies Qualitative versus quantitative studies Primary versus secondary studies

“In the lab” versus “in the wild” studies

Common “in the lab” methods –  Controlled experiments –  Literature reviews –  Simulations

Common “in the wild” methods

–  Quasi-experiments –  Case studies –  Survey research –  Ethnographies –  Action research

Examples

Qualitative versus quantitative studies

Qualitative research studying objects in their natural setting and letting the findings emerge from the observations

–  inductive process –  the subject is the person

Quantitative research quantifying a relationship or to compare two or more groups with the aim to identify a cause-effect relationship

–  fixed implied factors –  focus on collected quantitative data à promotes comparison and

statistical analyses

They are complementary

Primary versus secondary studies

Primary studies empirical studies in which we directly make measurements or observations about the objects of interest, whether by surveys, experiments, case studies, etc. Secondary studies empirical studies that do not generate any data from direct measurements, but:

–  analyze a set of primary studies –  usually seek to aggregate the results from these in order to

provide stronger forms of evidence about a phenomenon

Examples

…and what about this?

Types of empirical studies

•  Survey •  Case study •  Experiment

Survey

Def: a system for collecting information from or about people to describe, compare or explain their knowledge, attitudes and behavior Often an investigation performed in retrospect Interviews and questionnaires are the primary means of gathering qualitative or quantitative data These are done through taking a sample which is representative from the population to be studied

Example: our survey on arch. languages 1.  ALs Identification

–  Definition of a preliminary set of ALs –  Systematic search

2.  Planning the Survey

3.  Designing the survey

4.  Analyzing the Data –  vertical analysis (and coding) + horizontal analysis

Case study

Def: an empirical enquiry to investigate one instance (or a small number of instances) of a contemporary software engineering phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundary between phenomenon and context cannot be clearly specified Observational study Data collected to track a specific attribute or establishing relationships between different attributes Multivariate statistical analysis is often applied

Example

Experiment

Def: an empirical enquiry that manipulates one factor or variable of the studied setting.

1.  Identify and understand the variables that play a role in software development, and the connections between variables

2.  Learn cause-effect relationships between the development process and the obtained products

3.  Establish laws and theories about software construction that explain development behaviour

Experiment process

Example

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2491411.2491428

What to choose?

How to have an impact in reality?

This is called technology transfer

Writing good software engineering papers

Contents of this part of lecture extracted from Ivica Crnkovic’s lecture on software engineering research papers writing at Mälardalen University (Sweden)

Research Papers

The basic and most important activity of the research

•  Visible results, quality stamp •  Means for communications with other researchers

What, precisely, was your contribution? –  What question did you answer? –  Why should the reader care? –  What larger question does this address?

What is your new result? –  What new knowledge have you contributed that the reader can use

elsewhere? –  What previous work (yours or someone else’s) do you build on? What do

you provide a superior alternative to? –  How is your result different from and better than this prior work? –  What, precisely and in detail, is your new result?

Why should the reader believe your result? –  What standard should be used to evaluate your claim? –  What concrete evidence shows that your result satisfies your claim?

If you answer these questions clearly, you’ll probably communicate your result well

A good research paper should answer a number of questions

Let’s reconsider our SE research process…

Research questions

Research results

Research validation

What do program committees look for? The program committee looks for

–  a clear statement of the specific problem you solved –  the question about software development you answered –  an explanation of how the answer will help solve an important

software engineering problem

You'll devote most of your paper to describing your result, but you should begin by explaining what question you're answering and why the answer matters

Research questions

Research results

Explain precisely –  what you have contributed to the store of software engineering

knowledge –  how this is useful beyond your own project

What do program committees look for? The program committee looks for

–  interesting, novel, exciting results that significantly enhance our ability

•  to develop and maintain software •  to know the quality of the software we develop •  to recognize general principles about software •  or to analyze properties of software

You should explain your result in such a way that someone else could use your ideas

What do program committees look for? What’s new here?

Use verbs that shows RESULTS, not only efforts

Philosophical moment

•  What existing technology does your research build on?

•  What existing technology or prior research does your research provide a superior alternative to?

•  What’s new here compared to your own previous work?

•  What alternatives have other researchers pursued?

•  How is your work different or better?

What has been done before? How is your work different or better?

70

Explain the relation to other work clearly

What, precisely, is the result?

•  Explain what your result is and how it works. Be concrete and specific. Use examples. –  Example: system implementation

•  If the implementation demonstrates an implementation technique, how does it help the reader use the technique in another setting?

•  If the implementation demonstrates a capability or

performance improvement, what concrete evidence does it offer to support the claim?

•  If the system is itself the result, in what way is it a contribution to knowledge? Does it, for example, show you can do something that no one has done before?

Why should the reader believe your result? Show evidence that your result is valid—that it actually helps to solve the problem you set out to solve

What do program committees look for? Why should the reader believe your result?

•  If you claim to improve on prior art, compare your result objectively to the prior art

•  If you used an analysis technique, follow the rules of that analysis technique

•  If you offer practical experience as evidence for your result, establish the effect your research has. If at all possible, compare similar situations with and without your result

•  If you performed a controlled experiment, explain the experimental design. What is the hypothesis? What is the treatment? What is being controlled?

•  If you performed an empirical study, explain what you measured, how you analyzed it, and what you concluded

A couple of words on the abstract of a paper People judge papers by their abstracts and read the abstract in order to decide whether to read the whole paper.

It's important for the abstract to tell the whole story

Don't assume, though, that simply adding a sentence about analysis or experience to your abstract is sufficient; the paper must deliver what the abstract promises

Example of an abstract structure:

1.  Two or three sentences about the current state of the art, identifying a particular problem

2.  One or two sentences about what this paper contributes to improving the situation

3.  One or two sentences about the specific result of the paper and the main idea behind it

4.  A sentence about how the result is demonstrated or defended

Coming back to the initial example…

State of the art

Overall contribution

Specific results Validation

✓✗ ✓ ✓ ✗

Second try…

State of the art

Overall contribution

Specific results Validation

Homework

Homework

ICSE 2014 features a "Future of Software Engineering" track, which provides delegates with a unique opportunity to assess the current status of software engineering and to indicate where the field is heading in the future. FOSE is an invitation-only ICSE track that is held (approx.) every 7 or more years at ICSE An international group of leading experts has been invited to report on different topics, to provide a broad and in-depth view of the evolution of the field.

http://2014.icse-conferences.org/fose

Homework GOALS: 1.  to have the chance to study a specific area of software

engineering that may be of interest to you 2.  to be exposed to recurrent and important problems in

software engineering TASKS: 1.  Pick an article from the FOSE 2014 proceedings 2.  Carefully read it and analyse it in terms of:

–  its research domain, its evolution over time, and its future challenges –  [where possible] understand which research strategies have been

applied either in the paper or in the research area in general

3.  give a presentation (max 25 slides) to the classroom –  other post-docs and students will attend the presentations

What this lecture means to you?

You now know how to carry on research in SE Don’t focus on the “size” of the problem, but on

–  the relevance (the practical, but also the theoretical!) –  the accuracy in the investigation (problem and evaluation research)

When conducting empirical research, don’t make claims you cannot eventually measure Finally, don’t think in black and white only

–  don’t divide the world in methods, analyses, case study, etc. –  don’t be afraid to look also at other disciplines à we are software

engineers in any case J

Suggested readings

1.  Checking App Behavior Against App Descriptions (Alessandra Gorla, Ilaria Tavecchia, Florian Gross, Andreas Zeller), In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, ACM, 2014.

2.  Linares-Vásquez, M., Bavota, G., Bernal-Cárdenas, C., Oliveto, R., Di Penta, M., and Poshyvanyk, D., "Mining Energy-Greedy API Usage Patterns in Android Apps: an Empirical Study", in Proceedings of 11th IEEE Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR'14), Hyderabad, India, May 31- June 1, 2014, pp. 2-11

3.  Shaw, M. (2003), Writing Good Software Engineering Research Paper., in Lori A. Clarke; Laurie Dillon & Walter F. Tichy, ed., 'ICSE' , IEEE Computer Society, , pp. 726-737 .

4.  Shaw, M. (2002), 'What makes good research in software engineering?', STTT 4 (1) , 1-7 .

References

http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-29044-2

Contact Ivano Malavolta |

Post-doc researcher Gran Sasso Science Institute

iivanoo

[email protected]

www.ivanomalavolta.com

research in software engineering

Technology

research statement

practical software

varieties of x

characteristics of x

computing system

problem area

architectural specification

architectural constructs