Does Configuration Encoding Matter in Learning Software Performance? An Empirical Study on Encoding Schemes
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Learning and predicting the performance of a configurable software system helps to provide better quality assurance. One important engineering decision therein is how to encode the configuration into the model built. Despite the presence of different encoding schemes, there is still little understanding of which is better and under what circumstances, as the community often relies on some general beliefs that inform the decision in an ad-hoc manner. To bridge this gap, in this paper, we empirically compared the widely used encoding schemes for software performance learning, namely label, scaled label, and one-hot encoding. The study covers five systems, seven models, and three encoding schemes, leading to 105 cases of investigation. Our key findings reveal that: (1) conducting trial-and-error to find the best encoding scheme in a case by case manner can be rather expensive, requiring up to 400+ hours on some models and systems; (2) the one-hot encoding often leads to the most accurate results while the scaled label encoding is generally weak on accuracy over different models; (3) conversely, the scaled label encoding tends to result in the fastest training time across the models/systems while the one-hot encoding is the slowest; (4) for all models studied, label and scaled label encoding often lead to relatively less biased outcomes between accuracy and training time, but the paired model varies according to the system. We discuss the actionable suggestions derived from our findings, hoping to provide a better understanding of this topic for the community. To promote open science, the data and code of this work can be publicly accessed at https://github.com/ideas-labo/MSR2022-encoding-study.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Mar 2022.
Builds on
15 of 56 references.
References · 15
- 2018Finding Faster Configurations using FLASHcited by 32
- 2021Multi-Objectivizing Software Configuration Tuning (for a single performance concern)cited by 27
- 2021MMO: Meta Multi-Objectivization for Software Configuration Tuningcited by 19
- 2016FEMOSAA: Feature Guided and Knee Driven Multi-Objective Optimization for Self-Adaptive Softwarecited by 18
- 2016A Survey and Taxonomy of Self-Aware and Self-Adaptive Cloud Autoscaling Systemscited by 18
- 2016An Uncertainty-Aware Approach to Optimal Configuration of Stream Processing Systemscited by 17
- 2016Self-Adaptive Trade-off Decision Making for Autoscaling Cloud-Based Servicescited by 17
- 2020How to Evaluate Solutions in Pareto-based Search-Based Software Engineering? A Critical Review and Methodological Guidancecited by 17
- 2022Lifelong Dynamic Optimization for Self-Adaptive Systems: Fact or Fiction?cited by 16
- 2018Hyperparameter Optimization for Effort Estimationcited by 13
- 2019Learning to Sample: an Active Learning Frameworkcited by 11
- 2020Synergizing Domain Expertise with Self-Awareness in Software Systems: A Patternized Architecture Guidelinecited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 2; 2024: 5; 2025: 2.
10 papers.
- 2023Do Performance Aspirations Matter for Guiding Software Configuration Tuning?cited by 21
- 2024Predicting Configuration Performance in Multiple Environments with Sequential Meta-learningcited by 17
- 2023Predicting Software Performance with Divide-and-Learncited by 16
- 2024Adapting Multi-objectivized Software Configuration Tuningcited by 13
- 2024Deep Configuration Performance Learning: A Systematic Survey and Taxonomycited by 8
- 2024Dividable Configuration Performance Learningcited by 4
- 2024Rethinking Performance Analysis for Configurable Software Systems: A Case Study from a Fitness Landscape Perspectivecited by 3
- 2022Multifaceted Hierarchical Report Identification for Non-Functional Bugs in Deep Learning Frameworkscited by 0
- 2025Hardness, Structural Knowledge, and Opportunity: An Analytical Framework for Modular Performance Modelingcited by 0
- 2025Evaluating Useful Surrogate Models for Configuration Tuning Beyond Accuracy: A Fitness Landscape Analysis Perspectivecited by 0
- 2025Evaluating Useful Surrogate Models for Configuration Tuning Beyond Accuracy: A Fitness Landscape Analysis Perspective26 Sep 2025
- 2025Hardness, Structural Knowledge, and Opportunity: An Analytical Framework for Modular Performance Modeling13 Sep 2025
- 2024Rethinking Performance Analysis for Configurable Software Systems: A Case Study from a Fitness Landscape Perspective22 Dec 2024
- 2024Dividable Configuration Performance Learning11 Sep 2024
- 2024Adapting Multi-objectivized Software Configuration Tuning6 Apr 2024
- 2024Deep Configuration Performance Learning: A Systematic Survey and Taxonomy5 Mar 2024
- 2024Predicting Configuration Performance in Multiple Environments with Sequential Meta-learning5 Feb 2024
- 2023Predicting Software Performance with Divide-and-Learn11 Jun 2023
- 2023Do Performance Aspirations Matter for Guiding Software Configuration Tuning?9 Jan 2023
- 2022Multifaceted Hierarchical Report Identification for Non-Functional Bugs in Deep Learning Frameworks4 Oct 2022