Feature Diagrams and Logics: There and Back Again
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feature modeling is a notation and an approach for modeling commonality and variability in product families. In their basic form, feature models contain mandatory/optional features, feature groups, and implies and excludes relationships. It is known that such feature models can be translated into propositional formulas, which enables the analysis and configuration using existing logic- based tools. In this paper, we consider the opposite translation problem, that is, the extraction of feature models from propositional formulas. We give an automatic and efficient procedure for computing a feature model from a formula. As a side effect we characterize a class of logical formulas equivalent to feature models and identify logical structures corresponding to their syntactic elements. While many different feature models can be extracted from a single formula, the computed model strives to expose graphically the maximum of the original logical structure while minimizing redundancies in the representation. The presented work furthers our understanding of the semantics of feature modeling and its relation to logics, opening avenues for new applications in reverse engineering and refactoring of feature models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".