MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160998628 · doi:10.1109/splc.2008.49

Sample Spaces and Feature Models: There and Back Again

2008· article· en· W2160998628 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
KeywordsProbabilistic logicComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Set (abstract data type)Software product lineSemantics (computer science)Data miningSoftwareFeature engineeringArtificial intelligenceFeature modelTheoretical computer scienceProgramming languageSoftware development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present probabilistic feature models (PFMs) and illustrate their use by discussing modeling, mining and interactive configuration. PFMs are formalized as a set of formulas in a certain probabilistic logic. Such formulas can express both hard and soft constraints and have a well defined semantics by denoting a set of joint probability distributions over features. We show how PFMs can be mined from a given set of feature configurations using data mining techniques. Finally, we demonstrate how PFMs can be used in configuration in order to provide automated support for choice propagation based on both hard and soft constraints. We believe that these results constitute solid foundations for the construction of reverse engineering tools for software product lines and configurators using soft constraints.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.196 · 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