<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

The definition of architecture is a crucial task in software development, where the architect is responsible for making the right decisions to meet specific functional and quality requirements. These architectural design decisions form the foundation that shapes the arrangement of elements within a system. Unfortunately, these decisions are often poorly documented, implicit in various artifacts, or inadequately updated, leading to negative consequences on the maintainability of a system and resulting in rework and cost overruns. The objective of this systematic mapping study is to comprehend the current state regarding approaches for traceability of architectural design decisions and how these decisions are linked with the different artifacts used in software development. To achieve this, an information extraction protocol is followed, utilizing databases with search strings, inclusion, and exclusion criteria. The findings demonstrate that this knowledge is highly relevant; however, it is rarely explicitly documented. As a result, most works propose diverse approaches to extract this knowledge from existing technical documentation, commonly used tools, and other sources of product and process information. In contrast, it is evident that there is no standard for documenting design decisions, leading each author to present a subjective version of what is important and where to trace these decisions. This suggests that there is still a significant amount of research to be conducted regarding the traceability of these architectural design decisions and their connection with software artifacts. Such research could lead to intriguing new proposals for investigation.
</abstract>

Traceability of Architectural Design Decisions and Software Artifacts: A Systematic Mapping Study

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

Depending on the legal system, judges may have varying degrees of discretion in determining the type and extent of sentence that can be imposed for a particular offence. Nevertheless, it appears that even in systems traditionally considered discretionary, accepted patterns play a significant role in determining penalties, and judges utilize merely a limited spectrum of potential penalties in repetitive cases. Confirmation of the predictability of sentencing in certain categories of cases facilitates the possibility of automation. Utilising a computer program to assist judges in sentencing proposals based on input is feasible. This program can reflect the standard practice of sentencing penalties and punitive measures in a particular category of cases or rectify it, depending on the adopted sentencing policy. The objective of the article is to present findings from research that investigated whether a specific relation shapes the dimension of penalties and penal measures for cases concerning driving under the influence of alcohol in Poland, in the context of possible automation of the sentencing process. Another aim of this study is to provide an example of a straightforward mathematical recommendation model that tries to reflect both the discovered correlations in the data and the presumed intentions of legislators.
</abstract>

Towards automated recommendations for drunk driving penalties in Poland - a case study analysis in selected court

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

A method of parallelizing the process of solving the traveling salesman problem is suggested, where the solver is a heuristic algorithm. The traveling salesman problem parallelization is fulfilled by clustering the nodes into a given number of groups. Every group (cluster) is an open-loop subproblem that can be solved independently of other subproblems. Then the solutions of the respective subproblems are aggregated into a closed loop route being an approximate solution to the initial traveling salesman problem. The clusters should be enumerated such that then the connection of two “neighboring” subproblems (with successive numbers) be as short as possible. For this, the destination nodes of the open-loop subproblems are selected farthest from the depot and closest to the starting node for the subsequent subproblem. The initial set of nodes can be clustered manually by covering them with a finite regular-polygon mesh having the required number of cells. The efficiency of the parallelization is increased by solving all the subproblems in parallel, but the problem should be at least of 1000 nodes or so. Then, having no more than a few hundred nodes in a cluster, the genetic algorithm is especially efficient by executing all the routine calculations during every iteration whose duration becomes shorter.
</abstract>

Traveling salesman problem parallelization by solving clustered subproblems

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

DNA computing is a highly interdisciplinary field which combines molecular operations with theoretical algorithm design. A number of algorithms have been demonstrated in DNA computing, but to date network flow problems have not been studied. We aim to provide an approach to calculate the value of the maximum flow in networks by encoding the mathematical problem in DNA molecules and by using molecular biology techniques to manipulate the DNA. We present results which demonstrate that the algorithm works for an example network problem.
This paper presents the first application of DNA computing to network-flow problems. The presented algorithm has a linear time complexity where the calculation itself is done in a constant number of steps.
</abstract>

A DNA Algorithm for Calculating the Maximum Flow of a Network

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 49 (2024): Issue 1 (February 2024)

Volume 48 (2023): Issue 4 (December 2023)

Volume 48 (2023): Issue 3 (September 2023)

Volume 48 (2023): Issue 2 (June 2023)

Volume 48 (2023): Issue 1 (March 2023)

Volume 47 (2022): Issue 4 (December 2022) Special issue: “Recent advances on supply chain network design”

Volume 47 (2022): Issue 3 (September 2022)

Volume 47 (2022): Issue 2 (June 2022)

Volume 47 (2022): Issue 1 (February 2022)

Volume 46 (2021): Issue 4 (December 2021)

Volume 46 (2021): Issue 3 (September 2021)

Volume 46 (2021): Issue 2 (June 2021)

Volume 46 (2021): Issue 1 (March 2021)

Volume 45 (2020): Issue 4 (December 2020)

Volume 45 (2020): Issue 3 (September 2020)

Volume 45 (2020): Issue 2 (June 2020)

Volume 45 (2020): Issue 1 (March 2020)

Volume 44 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019)

Volume 44 (2019): Issue 3 (September 2019)

Volume 44 (2019): Issue 2 (June 2019)

Volume 44 (2019): Issue 1 (March 2019)

Volume 43 (2018): Issue 4 (December 2018)

Volume 43 (2018): Issue 3 (September 2018)

Volume 43 (2018): Issue 2 (June 2018)

Volume 43 (2018): Issue 1 (March 2018)

Volume 42 (2017): Issue 4 (December 2017)

Volume 42 (2017): Issue 3 (September 2017)

Volume 42 (2017): Issue 2 (June 2017)

Volume 42 (2017): Issue 1 (February 2017)

Volume 41 (2016): Issue 4 (November 2016)

Volume 41 (2016): Issue 3 (September 2016)

Volume 41 (2016): Issue 2 (June 2016)

Volume 41 (2016): Issue 1 (March 2016)

Volume 40 (2015): Issue 4 (December 2015)

Volume 40 (2015): Issue 3 (September 2015)

Volume 40 (2015): Issue 2 (June 2015)

Volume 40 (2015): Issue 1 (March 2015)

Volume 39 (2014): Issue 4 (December 2014)

Volume 39 (2014): Issue 3 (September 2014)

Volume 39 (2014): Issue 2 (June 2014)

Volume 39 (2014): Issue 1 (February 2014)

Volume 38 (2013): Issue 4 (December 2013)

Volume 38 (2013): Issue 3 (September 2013)

Volume 38 (2013): Issue 2 (June 2013)

Volume 38 (2013): Issue 1 (March 2013)

Volume 37 (2012): Issue 4 (December 2012)

Volume 37 (2012): Issue 3 (September 2012)

Volume 37 (2012): Issue 2 (June 2012)

Volume 37 (2012): Issue 1 (March 2012)

Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences

ISSN: 0867-6356 (print version)  Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences (until 1990 Foundations of Control Engineering) is a quarterly peer-reviewed international journal published since 1975. One of its main aims is its focus on the links between Computing (understood in the sense defined in the report of the ACM Task Force on the Core of Computer Science chaired by Peter J. Denning: Computing as a Discipline, CACM, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1989) and broadly understood Decision Sciences.  Scope of topics  The journal provides a forum for exchange of ideas for researchers in the fields of computing and decision sciences. The scope of the journal covers various areas of computing and decision sciences, particularly:    approximate reasoning,  artificial intelligence,  combinatorial optimization,  computational complexity theory,  databases and data warehouses,  intelligent decision support,  knowledge engineering,  machine learning and data mining,  metaheuristics,  multiple criteria decision analysis,  networking and distributed systems,  parallel computing and concurrency,  production and project scheduling,  scheduling theory,  soft and granular computing,  software engineering.     Why submit   International editorial board composed of distinguished scholars highly representative of the field of computing and decision sciences,  Quick turnaround,  Comprehensive peer review with at least two highly competent referees assessing each manuscript,  Promotion of published papers in the vast scientific community of researchers working in the field.   Rejection Rate   ca. 60%   Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process (iThenticate, https://www.ithenticate.com/ ). 