UML-driven software performance engineering: A systematic mapping and trend analysis

Progressions and Innovations in Model-Driven Software Engineering

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 18-64

  Garousi, Vahid ^a   Shahnewaz, Shawn ^a   Krishnamurthy, Diwakar ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; MAPPING; MODELING LANGUAGES; PAPER; POPULATION STATISTICS; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

BODY OF KNOWLEDGE; EMERGING TRENDS; PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE; RESEARCH QUESTIONS; SOFTWARE PERFORMANCE ENGINEERINGS; SOFTWARE SYSTEMS; STATE OF THE ART; SYSTEMATIC MAPPING;

UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

EID: 84943001475     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-4217-1.ch002     Document Type: Chapter

References (131)

1. Ahmad, A. (2004). A performance analysis approach based on the UML class diagram. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Software and Performance. New York, NY.
2. Alexander, V., Timo, S., Oliver, B., & Wolfgang, R. (2006). Formal performance analysis and simulation of UML/SysML models for ESL design. Paper presented at the e Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe. London, UK.
3. Ali, S., Briand, L. C., Hemmati, H., & Panesar- Walawege, R. K. (2010). A systematic review of the application and empirical investigation of search-based test-case generation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 36(6), 742-762. doi:10.1109/TSE.2009.52.
4. Andre, D. A., & Paolo, B. (2007). A model-driven approach to describe and predict the performance of composite services. Paper presented at the 6th International Workshop on Software and Performance. New York, NY.
5. Andrea, D. A. (2005). A model transformation framework for the automated building of performance models from UML models. Paper presented at the 5th International Workshop on Software and Performance. New York, NY.
6. Anil, S. J. (2000). UML diagrams to object Petri net models: An approach for modeling and analysis. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. Chicago, IL.
7. Banerjee, I., Nguyen, B., Garousi, V., & Memon, A. (2012). Graphical user interface (GUI) testing: Systematic mapping and repository. Information and Software Technology.
8. Bennett, A. J. (2004). Performance engineering with the UML profile for schedulability, performance and time: A case study. Paper presented at the IEEE Computer Society's 12th Annual International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunications Systems. New York, NY.
9. Bennett, A. J., & Murray, W. C. (2004). Experimental evaluation of the uml profile for schedulability, performance, and time. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language. New York, NY.
10. Bertolino, A. (2002). Real-time UML-based performance engineering to aid manager's decisions in multi-project planning. Paper presented at the 3rd International Workshop on Software and Performance. Rome, Italy.
11. Canevet, C. (2003). Performance modelling with the unified modelling language and stochastic process algebras. IEE Proceedings. Computers and Digital Techniques, 150(2), 107-120. doi:10.1049/ ip-cdt:20030084.
12. Canevet, C. (2004). Analysing UML 2.0 activity diagrams in the software performance engineering process. Paper presented at the 4th International Workshop on Software and Performance. New York, NY.
13. Christoph, L., Axel, T., Alexander, K., & Marco, L. (2002). Performance analysis of time-enhanced UML diagrams based on stochastic processes. Paper presented at the 3rd International Workshop on Software and Performance. Rome, Italy.
14. Daniel, P. (2012). 13 reasons for UML's descent into darkness. Retrieved from http://littletutorials.com/2008/05/15/13-reasons-for-umls-descentinto- darkness/
15. Di Marco, A., & Mirandola, R. (2006). Model transformation in software performance engineering. Paper presented at the International Conference on Quality of Software Architectures. New York, NY.
16. Distefano, S. (2005). Software performance analysis in uml models. Paper presented at the Workshop on Techniques, Methodologies and Tools for Performance Evaluation of Complex System. New York, NY.
17. Dorin, P., & Murray, W. (2002). Software performance models from system scenarios in use case maps. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Computer Performance Evaluation, Modelling Techniques and Tools. London, UK.
18. Dorina, P. D. (2000). Deriving performance models from UML models by graph transformations. Paper presented at the Tutorials, Workshop on Software and Performance. New York, NY.
19. Elberzhager, F., Münch, J., & Nha, V. T. N. (2012). A systematic mapping study on the combination of static and dynamic quality assurance techniques. Information and Software Technology, 54, 1-15. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2011.06.003.
20. Elena, G.-M., & Jose, M. (2005). A software performance engineering tool based on the UML-SPT. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems. New York, NY.
21. Elena, G.-M., & José, M. (2006). ArgoSPE: Model-Based software performance engineering. Paper presented at the International Conference on Applications and Theory of Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency. New York, NY.
22. Eric, W., Robert, L., & Victor, R. (2011). An assessment of systems and software engineering scholars and institutions (2003-2007 and 2004-2008). Journal of Systems and Software, 84(1), 162-168.
23. Evgeni, D., Andreas, S., & Reiner, D. (2002). UML-based performance engineering possibilities and techniques. IEEE Software, 19(1), 74-83. doi:10.1109/52.976944.
24. Fabrício Gomes, D. F., & Jerffeson Teixeira, D. S. (2011). Ten years of search based software engineering: A bibliometric analysis. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Search-Based Software Engineering. New York, NY.
25. Fried, H. (2000). Using UML models for performance calculation. Paper presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Software and Performance. Ottawa, Canada.
26. Garousi, V. (2011). Classification and trend analysis of UML books (1997-2009). Journal on Software & System Modeling.
27. Garousi, V., Krishnamurthy, D., & Shahnewaz, S. (2012). UML-driven software performance engineering: A systematic mapping. Paper presented at the http://www.softqual.ucalgary.ca/projects/ SM/UML_SPE
28. Garousi, V., Mesbah, A., Betin-Can, A., & Mirshokraie, S. (2012). A systematic mapping of web application testing. Information and Software Technology.
29. Garousi, V., & Varma, T. (2010). A bibliometric assessment of Canadian software engineering scholars and institutions (1996-2006). Canadian Journal on Computer and Information Science, 3(2), 19-29.
30. Glass, R. L. (1995). An assessment of systems and software engineering scholars and institutions (1993-1994). Journal of Systems and Software, 31(1), 3-6. doi:10.1016/0164-1212(95)00058-9.
31. Glass, R. L., & Chen, T. Y. (2001). An assessment of systems and software engineering scholars and institutions (1996-2000). Journal of Systems and Software, 59(1), 107-113. doi:10.1016/S0164- 1212(01)00052-8.
32. Glass, R. L., & Chen, T. Y. (2002). An assessment of systems and software engineering scholars and institutions (1997-2001). Journal of Systems and Software, 64(1), 79-86. doi:10.1016/S0164- 1212(02)00023-7.
33. Gu Gordon, P. (2002). XSLT transformation from UML models to LQN performance models. Paper presented at the 3rd International Workshop on Software and Performance. Rome, Italy.
34. Gu Gordon, P., & Petriu, D. C. (2005). From UML to LQN by XML algebra-based model transformations. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Software and Performance. New York, NY.
35. Guy, W. (2012). Ranting about UML tools. Retrieved from http://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~gwiener/ software-engineering/ranting-about-uml-toolspart- 1/
36. Hassan, G. (2000). Performance engineering of component-based distributed software systems. In Performance Engineering, State of the Art and Current Trends (pp. 40-55). London: Springer- Verlag.
37. Hayat Khan, R., & Heegaard, P. E. (2010). Translation from UML to SPN model: A performance modeling framework. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computer Design and Applications. New York, NY.
38. Hui, S. (2005). Performance analysis of UML models using aspect-oriented modeling techniques. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. Montego Bay, Jamaica.
39. Jackie, F. (1995). When to leap on the hype cycle. Gartner Inc.
40. James, S., & Wolfgang, E. (2003). A model-driven approach to non-functional analysis of software architectures. Paper presented at the 18th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. New York, NY.
41. James, S., & Wolfgang, E. (2004). Model driven performance analysis of enterprise information systems. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Test and Analysis of Component Based Systems. Warsaw, Poland.
42. Jill, J., Lydia, M., & Fiona, L. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and Systematic techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
43. Jing, X., Murray, W., & Dorina, P. (2003). Performance analysis of a software design using the uml profile for schedulability, performance, and time. Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on Modelling Techniques and Tools for Computer Performance Evaluation. Urbana, IL.
44. José, M., & Javier, C. (2003). Software performance modeling using UML and petri nets. In Calzarossa, M. A. G. (Ed.), Performance Tools and Applications to Networked Systems (LNCS) (Vol. 2965, pp. 265-289). Berlin: Springer.
45. Jose, M., Javier, C., & Eduardo, M. (2000a). A pattern-based approach to model software performance. Paper presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Software and Performance. Ottawa, Canada.
46. Jose, M., Javier, C., & Eduardo, M. (2000b). A Pattern-based approach to model software performance using UML and Petri nets: Application to agent-based systems. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Software and Performance. New York, NY.
47. Jose, M., Javier, C., & Eduardo, M. (2000c). A pattern-based approach to model software performance using UML and Petri nets: Application to agent-based systems. Paper presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Software and Performance. Ottawa, Canada.
48. Jose, M., Javier, C., & Eduardo, M. (2000d). Performance evaluation for the design of agent-based systems: A Petri net approach. Paper presented at the Workshop on Software Engineering and Petri Nets, within the 21st International Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets. Aarhus, Denmark.
49. Jose, M., Javier, C., Simona, B., & Susanna, D. (2002). A compositional semantics for UML state machines aimed at performance evaluation. Paper presented at the Sixth International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems. New York, NY.
50. Kendra, C., Lirong, D., & Yi, D. (2004). Performance modeling and analysis of software architectures: An aspect-oriented UML based approach. Science of Computer Programming, 57(1), 89-108.
51. Kendra, C., Lirong, D., Yi, D., & Jing, D. (2003). Modeling performance as an aspect: A UML based approach. Paper presented at the 4th AOSD Modeling With UML Workshop. San Francisco, CA.
52. Kitchenham, B., Brereton, O. P., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 51(1), 7-15. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009.
53. Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Evidence-Based Software Engineering.
54. Liu, H. H. (2011). Software performance and scalability: A quantitative approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118135532.
55. Lukas, P., Simon, S., Michael, G., Peter, M., & Volker, D. (2009). A practical approach for performance-driven UML modelling of handheld devices-A case study. Journal of Systems and Software, 82(1), 75-88. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2008.03.065.
56. Mathias, F., Hugo, B., & Bert, V. (2009). Applying megamodelling to model driven performance engineering. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems. New York, NY.
57. Mathias, F., & Jendrik, J. (2008). Putting performance engineering into model-driven engineering: Model-driven performance engineering. In Giese, H. (Ed.), Models in Software Engineering (pp.164-175). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
58. Mathias, F., Wasif, G., Christoph, F., Ivor, S., Peter, K., & John, B. (2008). Towards utilizing model-driven engineering of composite applications for business performance analysis. Paper presented at the 4th European Conference on Model Driven Architecture: Foundations and Applications. Berlin, Germany.
59. Merseguer, J., & Campos, J. (2003). Exploring roles for the UML diagrams in software performance engineering. Paper presented at the International Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice. New York, NY.
60. Miguel, D., Thomas, L., Mehdi, H., Stéphane, B.-B., & Sophie, P. (2000). UML extensions for the specification and evaluation of latency constraints in architectural models. Paper presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Software and Performance. Ottawa, Canada.
61. Mirco, T., & Stephen, G. (2008). Automatic extraction of PEPA performance models from UML activity diagrams annotated with the MARTE profile. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Software and Performance. New York, NY.
62. Moreno, M., & Simonetta, B. (2004). UML-PSI: The UML performance simulator. Paper presented at the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems, First International Conference. Torino, Italy.
63. Murray, W., Hui, S., Toqeer, I., & Jose, M. (2005). Performance by unified model analysis (PUMA). Paper presented at the 5th International Workshop on Software and Performance. Palma, Spain.
64. Nariman, M., & Vahid, G. (2008). A UMLbased conversion tool for monitoring and testing multi-agent systems. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence. New York, NY.
65. Object Management Group (OMG). (1999). RFP for scheduling, performance, and time. OMG document number ad/99-03-13.
66. Object Management Group (OMG). (2003). UML profile for schedulability, performance and time (SPT), version 1.0. Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/spec/SPTP/1.0/
67. Object Management Group (OMG). (2005a). RFP for UML profile for modeling and analysis of real-time and embedded systems (MARTE). OMG document: realtime/05-02-06.
68. Object Management Group (OMG). (2005b). UML profile for schedulability, performance and time (SPT), version 1.1. Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/spec/SPTP/1.1/
69. Object Management Group (OMG). (2011). UML profile for MARTE: Modeling and analysis of realtime embedded systems, version 1.1. Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/spec/MARTE/1.1
70. Object Management Group (OMG). (2012). UML meta-model superstructure specification. Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/Superstructure/PDF
71. Oliveira, F. M. (2007). Performance testing from UML models with resource descriptions. Paper presented at the Brazilian Workshop on Systematic and Automated Software Testing. Sao Paolo, Brazil.
72. Pablo, L.-G. J., Jose, M., & Javier, C. (2002). Performance engineering based on UML & SPN's: A software performance tool. Paper presented at the 7th International Symposium on Computer and Information Sciences. Orlando, FL.
73. Pablo, L.-G. J., José, M., & Javier, C. (2004). From UML activity diagrams to stochastic Petri nets: Application to software performance engineering. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Software and Performance. New York, NY.
74. Pekka, K. (2001). UML-based performance modeling framework for component-based distributed systems. In Performance Engineering, State of the Art and Current Trends (pp. 167-184). London: Springer-Verlag.
75. Pete, M., & Rob, H. (2000). PEPA performability modelling using UML statecharts. Paper presented at the UK Performance Engineering Workshop. Durham, UK.
76. Peter, K., & Rob, P. (2000). Derivation of Petri net performance models from UML specifications of communications software. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computer Performance Evaluation: Modelling Techniques and Tools. New York, NY.
77. Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., & Mattsson, M. (2008). Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE). New York, NY.
78. Petri, K., & Marko, H. (2005). Performance modeling and reporting for the UML 2.0 design of embedded systems. Paper presented at the International Symposium on System-on-Chip. Tampere, Finland.
79. Petriu, D. B., & Murray, W. (2004). A metamodel for generating performance models from UML designs. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Modelling Languages and Applications. New York, NY.
80. Petriu, D. B., & Murray, W. (2007). An intermediate metamodel with scenarios and resources for generating performance models from UML designs. Journal of Software and Systems Modeling, 6(2), 163-184. doi:10.1007/s10270-006-0026-8.
81. Petriu, D. C., & Hui, S. (2002). Applying the UML performance profile: Graph grammar-based derivation of LQN models from UML specifications. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computer Performance Evaluation, Modelling Techniques and Tools. New York, NY.
82. Petriu, D. C., & Xin, W. (2000). From UML descriptions of high-level software architectures to LQN performance models. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance. New York, NY.
83. Ping, G. G. (2003). Early evaluation of software performance based on the UML performance profile. Paper presented at the Conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research. New York, NY.
84. QuYang. K. J., Juha-Pekka, S., & Kari, T. (2006). Layered UML workload and SystemC platform models for performance simulation. Paper presented at the International Forum on Specification and Design Languages. Darmstadt, Germany.
85. Raffaela, M., & Vittorio, C. (2000). UML-based performance modeling of distributed systems. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language. York, UK.
86. Rasha, T., & Dorina, P. (2008). Integrating performance analysis in the model driven development of software product lines. Paper presented at the International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. New York, NY.
87. Reiner, D., Claus, R., Andreas, S., & Andre, S. (Eds.). (2001). Performance engineering: State of the art and current trends. Berlin: Springer.
88. Rob, P. (1998). Using UML to derive stochastic process algebra models. Paper presented at the 15th UK Performance Engineering Workshop, Department of Computer Science. Bristol, UK.
89. Runeson, P., Runeson, P., Rainer, A., & Regnell, B. (2012). Case study research in software engineering: Guidelines and examples. New York: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118181034.
90. Sabri, P., & Thomas, F. (2002a). On customizing the UML for modeling performance-oriented applications. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language. Dresden, Germany.
91. Sabri, P., & Thomas, F. (2002b). UML-based modeling of performance oriented parallel and distributed applications. Paper presented at the Winter Simulation Conference. San Diego, CA.
92. Sabri, P., & Thomas, F. (2005). Performance prophet: A performance modeling and prediction tool for parallel and distributed programs. Paper presented at the 2005 International Conference on Parallel Processing Workshops. Oslo, Norway.
93. Sacha, R., Andreas, M., & Klaus, P. (2006). A reuse technique for performance testing of software product lines. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Software Product Line Testing. New York, NY.
94. Salvatore, D., Daniele, P., Antonio, P., & Marco, S. (2004). UML design and software performance modeling. Paper presented at the 19th International Symposium on Computer and Information Sciences. Kemer-Antalya, Turkey.
95. Schmietendorf, A., & Dimitrov, E. (2001). Possibilities of performance modeling with UML. In Performance Engineering, State of the Art and Current Trends (pp. 78-95). Berlin: Springer.
96. Simona, B., & Jose, M. (2007). Performance evaluation of UML design with stochastic well-formed nets. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(11), 1843-1865. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2007.02.029.
97. Simona, B., Susanna, D., & Jose, M. (2002). From UML sequence diagrams and statecharts to analysable petri net models. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Software and Performance. New York, NY.
98. Simonetta, B., Di Marco, A., & Inverardi, P. (2004). Model-based performance prediction in software development: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 30(5), 295-310. doi:10.1109/TSE.2004.9.
99. Simonetta, B., & Marta, S. (2011). On transforming UML models into performance models. Paper presented at the Workshop on Transformations in the Unified Modeling Language. Genova, Italy.
100. Simonetta, B., Mattia, G., & Moreno, M. (2003). Towards simulation-based performance modeling of UML specifications (Technical Report CS-2003-2). Mestre, Italy: Dipartimento di Informatica, Universita Ca' Foscari di Venezia.
101. Simonetta, B., & Moreno, M. (2003a). A simulation- based approach to software performance modeling. Paper presented at the European Software Engineering Conference. Berlin, Germany.
102. Simonetta, B., & Moreno, M. (2003b). Towards performance evaluation of mobile systems in UML. Paper presented at the The European Simulation and Modelling Conference. Naples, Italy.
103. Simonetta, B., & Moreno, M. (2005). Performance evaluation of UML software architectures with multiclass queueing network models. Paper presented at the 5th International Workshop on Software and Performance. Palma, Spain.
104. Smith, C. U., Vittorio, C., & Di, M. A. (2005). From UML models to software performance results: An SPE process based on XML interchange formats. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Software and Performance. New York, NY.
105. Soloway, E., Lampert, R., Letovsky, S., Littman, D., & Pinto, J. (1988). Designing documentation to compensate for delocalized plans. Journal of Communication of the ACM, 31(11), 1259-1267. doi:10.1145/50087.50088.
106. Spiteri, S. T. (2008). Intuitive mapping of UML 2 activity diagrams into fundamental modeling concept Petri net diagrams and colored Petri nets. Paper presented at the 15th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems. Seoul, Korea.
107. Steffen, B., Heiko, K., & Ralf, R. (2008). The Palladio component model for model-driven performance prediction. Journal of Systems and Software, 82(1), 3-22.
108. Stephen, G., & Leila, K. (2005). A unified tool for performance modelling and prediction. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 89(1), 17-32. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2004.08.004.
109. Theelen, B. D., & der, P. P. H. A. v. (2003). Using the SHE method for UML-based performance modeling. Paper presented at the Forum on Specification and Design Language. Marseille, France.
110. Tse, T. H., Chen, T. Y., & Glass, R. L. (2006). An assessment of systems and software engineering scholars and institutions (2000-2004). Journal of Systems and Software, 79(6), 816-819. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2005.08.018.
111. Vahid, G. (2008a). A formalism for arrival time analysis of real-time tasks based on UML models. Paper presented at the Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering. Toronto, Canada.
112. Vahid, G. (2008b). Empirical analysis of a genetic algorithm-based stress test technique for distributed real-time systems. Paper presented at the Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. New York, NY.
113. Vahid, G. (2008c). Traffic-aware stress testing of distributed real-time systems based on UML models in the presence of time uncertainty. Paper presented at the International Conference on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation. Lillehammer, Norway.
114. Vahid, G. (2010a). A genetic algorithm-based stress test requirements generator tool and its empirical evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 36(6), 778-797. doi:10.1109/ TSE.2010.5.
115. Vahid, G. (2010b). Experience and challenges with UML-driven performance engineering of a distributed real-time system. Information and Software Technology, 52(6), 625-640. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2010.01.003.
116. Vahid, G. (2010c). UML model-driven detection of performance bottlenecks in concurrent real-time software. Paper presented at the IEEE International Symposium on Performance Evaluation of Computer Telecommunication Systems. Ottawa, Canada.
117. Vahid, G. (2011). Fault-driven stress testing of distributed real-time software based on UML models. Software Testing. Verification & Reliability, 21(2), 101-124. doi:10.1002/stvr.418.
118. Vahid, G., Briand, L. C., & Yvan, L. (2005). A unified approach for predictability analysis of real-time systems using UML-based control flow information. Paper presented at the GHHS. New York, NY.
119. Vahid, G., & Yvan, L. (2006). Traffic-aware stress testing of distributed systems based on UML models. Paper presented at the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering. Shanghai, China.
120. Vahid, G., & Yvan, L. (2008). Traffic-aware stress testing of distributed real-time systems based on UML models using genetic algorithms. Journal of Systems and Software, 81(2), 161-185. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2007.05.037.
121. Vahid, G., & Yvan, L. (2009). A UML-based quantitative framework for early prediction of resource usage and load in real-time systems. Journal of Software and System Modeling, 8(2), 275-302. doi:10.1007/s10270-008-0099-7.
122. Vincenzo, G., & Raffaela, M. (2001). UML modelling and performance analysis of mobile software architectures. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language, Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools. New York, NY.
123. Vincenzo, G., & Raffaela, M. (2002). PRIMAmob- UML: A methodology for performance analysis of mobile software architectures. Paper presented at the 3rd International Workshop on Software and Performance. Rome, Italy.
124. Vittorio, C., Antinisca, D. M., & Paola, I. (2011). Model-based software performance analysis. Berlin: Springer.
125. Vittorio, C., Katerina, G.-P., & Kalaivani, A., R., Ahmed, H., Rania, E., et al. (2005). Model-based performance risk analysis. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(1), 3-20. doi:10.1109/ TSE.2005.12.
126. Vittorio, C., & Maurizio, G. (2004). Performance modeling and validation of a software system in a RT-UML-based simulative environment. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing. Vienna, Austria.
127. Vittorio, C., Michele, G., & Marco, P. (2004). Xprit: An XML-based tool to translate uml diagrams into execution graphs and queueing networks. Paper presented at the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems, First International Conference. Enschede, The Netherlands.
128. Vittorio, C., & Raffaela, M. (2000). Deriving a queueing network based performance model from UML diagrams. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Software and Performance. New York, NY.
129. Vittorio, C., & Raffaela, M. (2002). PRIMAUML: A performance validation incremental methodology on early UML diagrams. Science of Computer Programming, 44(1), 101-129. doi:10.1016/S0167-6423(02)00033-3.
130. Wet, N. D., & Pieter, K. (2005). Using UML models for the performance analysis of network systems. The International Journal of Computer and Telecommunications Networking-Telecommunications and UML Languages, 49(5), 627 - 642.
131. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., & Wesslén, A. (2000). Experimentation in software engineering: An introduction. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-4625-2.