DATESSO: Self-Adapting Service Composition with Debt-Aware Two Levels Constraint Reasoning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The rapidly changing workload of service-based systems can easily cause under-/over-utilization on the component services, which can consequently affect the overall Quality of Service (QoS), such as latency. Self-adaptive services composition rectifies this problem, but poses several challenges: (i) the effectiveness of adaptation can deteriorate due to over-optimistic assumptions on the latency and utilization constraints, at both local and global levels; and (ii) the benefits brought by each composition plan is often short term and is not often designed for long-term benefits -- a natural prerequisite for sustaining the system. To tackle these issues, we propose a two levels constraint reasoning framework for sustainable self-adaptive services composition, called DATESSO. In particular, DATESSO consists of a re ned formulation that differentiates the "strictness" for latency/utilization constraints in two levels. To strive for long-term benefits, DATESSO leverages the concept of technical debt and time-series prediction to model the utility contribution of the component services in the composition. The approach embeds a debt-aware two level constraint reasoning algorithm in DATESSO to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of self-adaptive service composition. We evaluate DATESSO on a service-based system with real-world WS-DREAM dataset and comparing it with other state-of-the-art approaches. The results demonstrate the superiority of DATESSO over the others on the utilization, latency and running time whilst likely to be more sustainable.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 31 Mar 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 3; 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 2.
9 papers.
- 2021Multi-Objectivizing Software Configuration Tuning (for a single performance concern)cited by 27
- 2023Do Performance Aspirations Matter for Guiding Software Configuration Tuning?cited by 21
- 2021MMO: Meta Multi-Objectivization for Software Configuration Tuningcited by 19
- 2022The Weights can be Harmful: Pareto Search versus Weighted Search in Multi-Objective Search-Based Software Engineeringcited by 17
- 2022Lifelong Dynamic Optimization for Self-Adaptive Systems: Fact or Fiction?cited by 16
- 2022Planning Landscape Analysis for Self-Adaptive Systemscited by 12
- 2025Distilled Lifelong Self-Adaptation for Configurable Systemscited by 11
- 2025Faster Configuration Performance Bug Testing with Neural Dual-level Prioritizationcited by 9
- 2024Deep Configuration Performance Learning: A Systematic Survey and Taxonomycited by 8
- 2025Faster Configuration Performance Bug Testing with Neural Dual-level Prioritization26 Jan 2025
- 2025Distilled Lifelong Self-Adaptation for Configurable Systems1 Jan 2025
- 2024Deep Configuration Performance Learning: A Systematic Survey and Taxonomy5 Mar 2024
- 2023Do Performance Aspirations Matter for Guiding Software Configuration Tuning?9 Jan 2023
- 2022Planning Landscape Analysis for Self-Adaptive Systems23 Mar 2022
- 2022The Weights can be Harmful: Pareto Search versus Weighted Search in Multi-Objective Search-Based Software Engineering8 Feb 2022
- 2022Lifelong Dynamic Optimization for Self-Adaptive Systems: Fact or Fiction?18 Jan 2022
- 2021MMO: Meta Multi-Objectivization for Software Configuration Tuning14 Dec 2021
- 2021Multi-Objectivizing Software Configuration Tuning (for a single performance concern)31 May 2021