TUHH Open Research
Help
  • Log In
    New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Communities & Collections
  • Publications
  • Research Data
  • People
  • Institutions
  • Projects
  • Statistics
  1. Home
  2. TUHH
  3. Publications
  4. Comparison of static analysis architecture recovery tools for microservice applications
 
Options

Comparison of static analysis architecture recovery tools for microservice applications

Citation Link: https://doi.org/10.15480/882.15359
Publikationstyp
Journal Article
Date Issued
2025-10-01
Sprache
English
Author(s)
Schneider, Simon Malte  
Software Security E-22  
Bakhtin, Alexander  
Li, Xiaozhou  
Soldani, Jacopo  
Brogi, Antonio  
Cerny, Tomas  
Scandariato, Riccardo  
Software Security E-22  
Taibi, Davide  
TORE-DOI
10.15480/882.15359
TORE-URI
https://hdl.handle.net/11420/56133
Journal
Empirical software engineering  
Volume
30
Issue
5
Article Number
128
Citation
Empirical Software Engineering 30 (5): 128 (2025)
Publisher DOI
10.1007/s10664-025-10686-2
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105008511026
Publisher
Springer
Architecture recovery tools help software engineers obtain an overview of the structure of their software systems during all phases of the software development life cycle. This is especially important for microservice applications because they consist of multiple interacting microservices, which makes it more challenging to oversee the architecture. Various tools and techniques for architecture recovery (also called architecture reconstruction) have been presented in academic and gray literature sources, but no overview and comparison of their accuracy exists. This paper presents the results of a multivocal literature review with the goal of identifying architecture recovery tools for microservice applications and a comparison of the identified tools’ architectural recovery accuracy. We focused on static tools since they can be integrated into fast-paced CI/CD pipelines. 13 such tools were identified from the literature and nine of them could be executed and compared on their capability of detecting different system characteristics. The best-performing tool exhibited an overall F1-score of 0.86. Additionally, the possibility of combining multiple tools to increase the recovery correctness was investigated, yielding a combination of four individual tools that achieves an F1-score of 0.91.
Subjects
Architecture reconstruction | Architecture recovery | Microservices | Static analysis
DDC Class
005: Computer Programming, Programs, Data and Security
Funding(s)
Projekt DEAL  
Publication version
publishedVersion
Lizenz
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name

s10664-025-10686-2.pdf

Size

3.79 MB

Format

Adobe PDF

TUHH
Weiterführende Links
  • Contact
  • Send Feedback
  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • Impress
DSpace Software

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science
Design by effective webwork GmbH

  • Deutsche NationalbibliothekDeutsche Nationalbibliothek
  • ORCiD Member OrganizationORCiD Member Organization
  • DataCiteDataCite
  • Re3DataRe3Data
  • OpenDOAROpenDOAR
  • OpenAireOpenAire
  • BASE Bielefeld Academic Search EngineBASE Bielefeld Academic Search Engine
Feedback