MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767407390 · doi:10.1109/models.2017.3

Software Product Lines with Design Choices: Reasoning about Variability and Design Uncertainty

2017· article· en· W2767407390 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 TorontoUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware product lineProduct lineAbstractionProduct designSoftware engineeringSoftwareProduct (mathematics)Design space explorationSet (abstract data type)Systems engineeringIndustrial engineeringSoftware developmentProgramming languageManufacturing engineeringEngineeringEmbedded systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When designing changes to a software product line (SPL), developers are faced with uncertainty about deciding among multiple possible SPL designs. Since each SPL design encodes a set of related products, dealing with multiple designs means that developers must reason about sets of sets of products. The additional degree of multiplicity is not well described by existing product line abstractions. In this paper, we propose an approach for dealing with design uncertainty within SPLs using a novel composition of variability modelling with an abstraction for capturing and managing design uncertainty. This allows developers to accurately describe the decisions involved in making changes to an SPL during the design stage and provides them with a framework for SPL design space exploration by analyzing and enforcing SPL properties.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.237 · 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