Evolving software system families in space and time with feature revisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Software companies commonly develop and maintain variants of systems, with different feature combinations for different customers. Thus, they must cope with variability in space. Software companies further must cope with variability in time, when updating system variants by revising existing software features. Inevitably, variants evolve orthogonally along these two dimensions, resulting in challenges for software maintenance. Our work addresses this challenge with ECSEST (Extraction and Composition for Systems Evolving in Space and Time), an approach for locating feature revisions and composing variants with different feature revisions. We evaluated ECSEST using feature revisions and variants from six highly configurable open source systems. To assess the correctness of our approach, we compared the artifacts of input variants with the artifacts from the corresponding composed variants based on the implementation of the extracted features. The extracted traces allowed composing variants with 99-100% precision, as well as with 97-99% average recall. Regarding the composition of variants with new configurations, our approach can combine different feature revisions with 99% precision and recall on average. Additionally, our approach retrieves hints when composing new configurations, which are useful to find artifacts that may have to be added or removed for completing a product. The hints help to understand possible feature interactions or dependencies. The average time to locate feature revisions ranged from 25 to 250 seconds, whereas the average time for composing a variant was 18 seconds. Therefore, our experiments demonstrate that ECSEST is feasible and effective.
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 | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".