skip to main content
10.1145/3071178.3071199acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Fragment-based genetic programming for fully automated multi-objective web service composition

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 July 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Web services have become increasingly popular in recent years, given their modular nature and reusability potential. A particularly promising application is in Web service composition, where multiple individual services with specific functionalities are composed to accomplish a more complex task. Researchers have proposed evolutionary computing techniques for creating compositions that are not only feasible, but also have the best possible Quality of Service (QoS). Some of these works employed multi-objective techniques to tackle the optimisation of compositions with conflicting QoS attributes, but they are not fully automated, i.e. they assume the composition workflow structure is already known. This assumption is often not satisfied, as the workflow is often unknown. This paper proposes a genetic programming-based method to automatically generate service compositions in a multi-objective context, based on a novel fragmented tree representation. An evaluation using benchmark datasets is carried out, comparing existing methods adapted to the multi-objective composition problem. Results show that the fragmented method has the lowest execution time overall. In terms of quality, its Pareto fronts are equivalent to those of one of the approaches but inferior to those of the other. More importantly, this work provides a foundation for future investigation of multi-objective fully automated service composition.

References

  1. Gustavo Alonso, Fabio Casati, Harumi Kuno, and Vijay Machiraju. 2004. Web services. In Web Services. Springer, 123--149.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Lerina Aversano, Massimiliano Di Penta, and Kunal Taneja. 2006. A genetic programming approach to support the design of service compositions. International Journal of Computer Systems Science & Engineering 21, 4 (2006), 247--254.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajay Bansal, M Brian Blake, Srividya Kona, Steffen Bleul, Thomas Weise, and Michael C Jaeger. 2008. WSC-08: continuing the web services challenge. In E-Commerce Technology and the 5th IEEE Conference on Enterprise Computing, E-Commerce and E-Services, 10th IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 351--354. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Gerardo Canfora, Massimiliano Di Penta, Raffaele Esposito, and Maria Luisa Villani. 2005. An approach for QoS-aware service composition based on genetic algorithms. In Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, 1069--1075. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Viorica Rozina Chifu, Cristina Bianca Pop, loan Salomie, Dumitru Samuel Suia, and Alexandru Nicolae Niculici. 2011. Optimizing the semantic web service composition process using cuckoo search. In Intelligent distributed computing V. Springer, 93--102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Alexandre Sawczuk da Silva, Hui Ma, and Mengjie Zhang. 2015. GraphEvol: a graph evolution technique for web service composition. In International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications. Springer, 134--142.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Alexandre Sawczuk da Silva, Yi Mei, Hui Ma, and Mengjie Zhang. 2016. A memetic algorithm-based indirect approach to web service composition. In Evolutionary Computation (CEC), IEEE Congress on. IEEE, 3385--3392.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Kalyanmoy Deb, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and TAMT Meyarivan. 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation 6, 2 (2002), 182--197. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Srividya Kona, Ajay Bansal, M Brian Blake, Steffen Bleul, and Thomas Weise. 2009. WSC-2009: a quality of service-oriented web services challenge. In Commerce and Enterprise Computing (CEC'09). IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 487--490. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. John R Koza. 1992. Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. Vol. 1. MIT press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Miqing Li and Jinhua Zheng. 2009. Spread assessment for evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization. Springer, 216--230. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Shulei Liu, Yunxiang Liu, Ning Jing, Guifen Tang, and Yu Tang. 2005. A dynamic web service selection strategy with QoS global optimization based on multi-objective genetic algorithm. In International Conference on Grid and Cooperative Computing. Springer, 84--89. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Hui Ma, Anqi Wang, and Mengjie Zhang. 2015. A hybrid approach using genetic programming and greedy search for QoS-aware web service composition. In Transactions on Large-Scale Data-and Knowledge-Centered Systems XVIII. Springer, 180--205.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Yue Ma and Chengwen Zhang. 2008. Quick convergence of genetic algorithm for QoS-driven web service selection. Computer Networks 52, 5 (2008), 1093--1104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Daniel A Menascé. 2002. QoS issues in web services. IEEE internet computing 6, 6 (2002), 72--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Michael P Papazoglou, Paolo Traverso, Schahram Dustdar, and Frank Leymann. 2007. Service-oriented computing: State of the art and research challenges. Computer 40, 11 (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Jinghai Rao and Xiaomeng Su. 2004. A survey of automated web service composition methods. In International Workshop on Semantic Web Services and Web Process Composition. Springer, 43--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Pablo Rodriguez-Mier, Manuel Mucientes, Manuel Lama, and Miguel I Couto. 2010. Composition of web services through genetic programming. Evolutionary Intelligence 3, 3--4 (2010), 171--186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Hongxia Tong, Jian Cao, Shensheng Zhang, and Minglu Li. 2011. A distributed algorithm for web service composition based on service agent model. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 22, 12 (2011), 2008--2021. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Hiroshi Wada, Junichi Suzuki, Yuji Yamano, and Katsuya Oba. 2012. E3: A Multiobjective Optimization Framework for SLA-Aware Service Composition. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 5, 3 (2012), 358--372. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Lijuan Wang, Jun Shen, and Jianming Yong. 2012. A survey on bio-inspired algorithms for web service composition. In Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), IEEE 16th International Conference on. IEEE, 569--574.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Petia Wohed, Wil MP van der Aalst, Marlon Dumas, and Arthur HM Ter Hofstede. 2003. Analysis of web services composition languages: The case of BPEL4WS. In International Conference on Conceptual Modeling. Springer, 200--215.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Yujie Yao and Haopeng Chen. 2009. QoS-aware service composition using NSGA-II. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Interaction Sciences: Information Technology, Culture and Human. ACM, 358--363. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Hao Yin, Changsheng Zhang, Bin Zhang, Ying Guo, and Tingting Liu. 2014. A hybrid multiobjective discrete particle swarm optimization algorithm for a SLA-aware service composition problem. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2014 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Liangzhao Zeng, Boualem Benatallah, Marlon Dumas, Jayant Kalagnanam, and Quan Z Sheng. 2003. Quality driven web services composition. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 411--421. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Liangzhao Zeng, Boualem Benatallah, Anne HH Ngu, Marlon Dumas, Jayant Kalagnanam, and Henry Chang. 2004. QoS-aware middleware for web services composition. IEEE Transactions on software engineering 30, 5 (2004), 311--327. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Liang-Jie Zhang, Jia Zhang, and Hong Cai. 2007. Service-oriented architecture. Services Computing (2007), 89--113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Fragment-based genetic programming for fully automated multi-objective web service composition

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        GECCO '17: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
        July 2017
        1427 pages
        ISBN:9781450349208
        DOI:10.1145/3071178

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 1 July 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        GECCO '17 Paper Acceptance Rate178of462submissions,39%Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

        Upcoming Conference

        GECCO '24
        Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
        July 14 - 18, 2024
        Melbourne , VIC , Australia

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader