skip to main content
10.1145/2556624.2556644acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesvamosConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

On lazy and eager interactive reconfiguration

Published: 22 January 2014 Publication History

Abstract

An interactive configuration tool needs to provide feedback to the user on possible further decisions while respecting constraints of the product being configured. In the presence of a large number of product features, it reduces the configuration effort if users can start from a default configuration and adapt only those features that are important to them. Hence, rather than completing an empty configuration (empty product), it is easier to move from one complete configuration to another (from one product to another). This paper shows how to provide tool support for this approach to interactive configuration. Two types of algorithms, based on recent advancements in SAT technology, are introduced: lazy and eager. While the eager provides more information to the user, the lazy scales to configuration models with tens of thousands of features. This is confirmed by an experimental evaluation carried out with the implemented prototype.

References

[1]
J. Amilhastre, H. Fargier, and P. Marquis. Consistency restoration and explanations in dynamic CSPs application to configuration. Artificial Intelligence, 135(1-2):199--234, 2002.
[2]
N. Andersen, K. Czarnecki, S. She, and A. Wasowski. Efficient synthesis of feature models. In SPLC (1). ACM, 2012.
[3]
A. Belov, M. Janota, I. Lynce, and J. Marques-Silva. On computing minimal equivalent subformulas. In CP. Springer, 2012.
[4]
A. Belov, I. Lynce, and J. Marques-Silva. Towards efficient MUS extraction. AI Comm., 25(2):97--116, 2012.
[5]
H. K. Büning and O. Kullmann. Minimal unsatisfiability and autarkies. In Handbook of Satisfiability, volume 185. IOS Press, 2009.
[6]
K. Czarnecki and A. Wasowski. Feature diagrams and logics: There and back again. In SPLC, pages 23--34. IEEE Computer Society, 2007.
[7]
N. Eén and N. Sörensson. An extensible SAT-solver. In SAT, 2003.
[8]
T. Hadzic, S. Subbarayan, R. M. Jensen, H. R. Andersen, J. Møller, and H. Hulgaard. Fast backtrack-free product configuration using a precompiled solution space representation. In PETO, 2004.
[9]
E. Hebrard, B. Hnich, B. O'Sullivan, and T. Walsh. Finding diverse and similar solutions in constraint programming. In AAAI, pages 372--377. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, 2005.
[10]
M. Janota. Do SAT solvers make good configurators? In SPLC (2), 2008.
[11]
M. Janota. SAT Solving in Interactive Configuration. PhD thesis, University College Dublin, Nov. 2010.
[12]
M. Janota, G. Botterweck, R. Grigore, and J. Marques-Silva. How to complete an interactive configuration process? In SOFSEM. Springer, 2010.
[13]
A. Kaiser and W. Küchlin. Detecting inadmissible and necessary variables in large propositional formulae. In Int. Joint Conf. on Aut. Reasoning: IJCAR, 2001.
[14]
K. C. Kang, S. G. Cohen, J. A. Hess, W. E. Novak, and A. S. Peterson. Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study, 1990.
[15]
Linux variability analysis tools (LVAT). code.google.com/p/linux-variability-analysis-tools.
[16]
J. Marques-Silva, F. Heras, M. Janota, A. Previti, and A. Belov. On computing minimal correction subsets. In IJCAI. IJCAI/AAAI, 2013.
[17]
J. Marques-Silva, M. Janota, and A. Belov. Minimal sets over monotone predicates in boolean formulae. In CAV, 2013.
[18]
M. Mendonça, A. Wasowski, and K. Czarnecki. SAT-based analysis of feature models is easy. In SPLC, 2009.
[19]
A. Nöhrer, A. Biere, and A. Egyed. Managing SAT inconsistencies with HUMUS. In VaMoS. ACM, 2012.
[20]
B. O'Callaghan, B. O'Sullivan, and E. C. Freuder. Generating corrective explanations for interactive constraint satisfaction. In CP. Springer, 2005.
[21]
P.-Y. Schobbens, P. Heymans, J.-C. Trigaux, and Y. Bontemps. Generic semantics of feature diagrams. Computer Networks, 51(2):456--479, 2007.
[22]
S. She, R. Lotufo, T. Berger, A. Wasowski, and K. Czarnecki. The variability model of the Linux kernel. In VaMoS, 2010.
[23]
Software product lines online tools (SPLOT). http://www.splot-research.org/.
[24]
T. Tanjo, N. Tamura, and M. Banbara. A compact and efficient SAT-encoding of finite domain CSP. In SAT, 2011.
[25]
J. White, D. Benavides, D. C. Schmidt, P. Trinidad, B. Dougherty, and A. R. Cortés. Automated diagnosis of feature model configurations. Journal of Systems and Software, 83(7):1094--1107, 2010.

Cited By

View all
  • (2018)VaryLATEXProceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems10.1145/3168365.3168372(83-88)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2018
  • (2018)Anytime diagnosis for reconfigurationJournal of Intelligent Information Systems10.1007/s10844-017-0492-151:1(161-182)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2018
  • (2014)Constructing adaptive configuration dialogs using crowd dataProceedings of the 29th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering10.1145/2642937.2642960(485-490)Online publication date: 15-Sep-2014
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
VaMoS '14: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems
January 2014
170 pages
ISBN:9781450325561
DOI:10.1145/2556624
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

  • University of Duisburg-Essen
  • IT University of Copenhagen
  • UNSA: University of Nice Sophia Antipolis

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 22 January 2014

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. SAT
  2. interactive configuration
  3. minimal correction sets

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

VaMoS '14
Sponsor:
  • UNSA

Acceptance Rates

VaMoS '14 Paper Acceptance Rate 21 of 55 submissions, 38%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 66 of 147 submissions, 45%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 02 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2018)VaryLATEXProceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems10.1145/3168365.3168372(83-88)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2018
  • (2018)Anytime diagnosis for reconfigurationJournal of Intelligent Information Systems10.1007/s10844-017-0492-151:1(161-182)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2018
  • (2014)Constructing adaptive configuration dialogs using crowd dataProceedings of the 29th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering10.1145/2642937.2642960(485-490)Online publication date: 15-Sep-2014
  • (2014)A Variability Representation Approach Based on Domain Service Taxonomies and Their Dependencies2014 33rd International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC)10.1109/SCCC.2014.11(116-119)Online publication date: Nov-2014
  • (2014)On Computing Preferred MUSes and MCSesTheory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing – SAT 201410.1007/978-3-319-09284-3_6(58-74)Online publication date: 2014

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media