MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1710690747 · doi:10.5555/1753235.1753267

SAT-based analysis of feature models is easy

2009· article· en· W1710690747 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSatisfiabilityComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Consistency (knowledge bases)Theoretical computer scienceExploitFeature modelFeature selectionModel checkingProduct (mathematics)AlgorithmData miningArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feature models are a popular variability modeling nota-tion used in product line engineering. Automated analyses of feature models, such as consistency checking and inter-active or offline product selection, often rely on translating models to propositional logic and using satisfiability (SAT) solvers. Efficiency of individual satisfiability-based analyses has been reported previously. We generalize and quantify these studies with a series of independent experiments. We show that previously reported efficiency is not incidental. Unlike with the general SAT instances, which fall into easy and hard classes, the instances induced by feature modeling are easy throughout the spectrum of realistic models. In par-ticular, the phenomenon of phase transition is not observed for realistic feature models. Our main practical conclusion is a general encourage-ment for researchers to continued development of SAT-based methods to further exploit this efficiency in future. 1

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations223
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207