MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047527986 · doi:10.1145/2362536.2362548

Automated planning for feature model configuration based on functional and non-functional requirements

2012· article· en· W2047527986 on OpenAlexaff
Samaneh Soltani, Mohsen Asadi, Dragan Gašević, Marek Hatala, Ebrahim Bagheri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsAthabasca UniversitySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunctional requirementFeature modelComputer scienceSoftware product lineFeature (linguistics)Non-functional requirementProcess (computing)ScalabilityFunctional designFunctional specificationSoftwareSoftware engineeringProduct (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceSystems engineeringSoftware systemSoftware developmentDatabaseEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feature modeling is one of the main techniques used in Software Product Line Engineering to manage the variability within the products of a family. Concrete products of the family can be generated through a configuration process. The configuration process selects and/or removes features from the feature model according to the stakeholders' requirements. Selecting the right set of features for one product from amongst all of the available features in the feature model is a complex task because: 1) the multiplicity of stakeholders' functional requirements; 2) the positive or negative impact of features on non-functional properties; and 3) the stakeholders' preferences w.r.t. the desirable non-functional properties of the final product. Many configurations techniques have already been proposed to facilitate automated product derivation. However, most of the current proposals are not designed to consider stakeholders' preferences and constraints especially with regard to non-functional properties. We address the software product line configuration problem and propose a framework, which employs an artificial intelligence planning technique to automatically select suitable features that satisfy both the stakeholders' functional and non-functional preferences and constraints. We also provide tooling support to facilitate the use of our framework. Our experiments show that despite the complexity involved with the simultaneous consideration of both functional and non-functional properties our configuration technique is scalable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207