Mining configuration constraints: static analyses and empirical results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Highly-configurable systems allow users to tailor the software to their specific needs. Not all combinations of configuration options are valid though, and constraints arise for technical or non-technical reasons. Explicitly describing these constraints in a variability model allows reasoning about the supported configurations. To automate creating variability models, we need to identify the origin of such configuration constraints. We propose an approach which uses build-time errors and a novel feature-effect heuristic to automatically extract configuration constraints from C code. We conduct an empirical study on four highly-configurable open-source systems with existing variability models having three objectives in mind: evaluate the accuracy of our approach, determine the recoverability of existing variability-model constraints using our analysis, and classify the sources of variability-model constraints. We find that both our extraction heuristics are highly accurate (93% and 77% respectively), and that we can recover 19% of the existing variability-models using our approach. However, we find that many of the remaining constraints require expert knowledge or more expensive analyses. We argue that our approach, tooling, and experimental results support researchers and practitioners working on variability model re-engineering, evolution, and consistency-checking techniques.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".