Abstract
Feature models are commonly used to specify the valid configurations of product lines. As industrial feature models are typically complex, researchers and practitioners employ various automated analyses to study the configuration spaces. Many of these automated analyses require that numerous complex computations are executed on the same feature model, for example by querying a SAT or #SATsolver. With knowledge compilation, feature models can be compiled in a one-time effort to a target language that enables polynomial-time queries for otherwise more complex problems. In this work, we elaborate on the potential of employing knowledge compilation on feature models. First, we gather various feature-model analyses and study their computational complexity with regard to the underlying computational problem and the number of solver queries required for the respective analysis. Second, we collect knowledge-compilation target languages and map feature-model analyses to the languages that make the analysis tractable. Third, we empirically evaluate publicly available knowledge compilers to further inspect the potential benefits of knowledge-compilation target languages.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the replication repository, https://github.com/SoftVarE-Group/kc-for-fmanalysis-evaluation/.
References
Thüm, T., Apel, S., Kästner, C., Schaefer, I., Saake, G.: A classification and survey of analysis strategies for software product lines. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 47(1), 6–1645 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2580950
Benavides, D., Segura, S., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: A literature review. Information Systems 35(6), 615–708 (2010)
Pohl, K., Böckle, G., van der Linden, F.J.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28901-1
Berger, T., Nair, D., Rublack, R., Atlee, J.M., Czarnecki, K., Wąsowski, A.: Three Cases of Feature-Based Variability Modeling in Industry. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), pp. 302–319. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11653-2_19
McGregor, J.: Testing a Software Product Line. In: Testing Techniques in Software Engineering, pp. 104–140. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2010)
Apel, S., Batory, D., Kästner, C., Saake, G.: Feature-Oriented Software Product Lines. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37521-7
Sundermann, C., Thüm, T., Schaefer, I.: Evaluating #SAT Solvers on Industrial Feature Models. In: Proc. Int’l Working Conf. on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS). ACM, New York, NY, USA (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3377024.3377025
Lotufo, R., She, S., Berger, T., Czarnecki, K., Wąsowski, A.: Evolution of the Linux Kernel Variability Model. In: Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pp. 136–150. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2010)
Kübler, A., Zengler, C., Küchlin, W.: Model Counting in Product Configuration. In: Proc. Int’l Workshop on Logics for Component Configuration (LoCoCo), pp. 44–53. Open Publishing Association, Waterloo, Australia (2010). https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.29.5
Sprey, J., Sundermann, C., Krieter, S., Nieke, M., Mauro, J., Thüm, T., Schaefer, I.: SMT-Based Variability Analyses in FeatureIDE. In: Proc. Int’l Working Conf. on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS). ACM, New York, NY, USA (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3377024.3377036
Mendonça, M., Wąsowski, A., Czarnecki, K.: SAT-Based Analysis of Feature Models is Easy. In: Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pp. 231–240. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (2009)
Batory, D.: Feature Models, Grammars, and Propositional Formulas. In: Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pp. 7–20. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11554844_3
Benavides, D., Trinidad, P., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: Using Constraint Programming to Reason on Feature Models. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE), pp. 677–682 (2005)
Kuiter, E., Krieter, S., Sundermann, C., Thüm, T., Saake, G.: Tseitin or not Tseitin? The Impact of CNF Transformations on Feature-Model Analyses. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 110–111013. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3551349.3556938
Oh, J., Gazzillo, P., Batory, D.: t-wise Coverage by Uniform Sampling. In: Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pp. 84–87. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2019)
Oh, J., Gazzillo, P., Batory, D., Heule, M., Myers, M.: Uniform Sampling from Kconfig Feature Models. Technical Report TR-19-02, The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Computer Science (2019)
Knüppel, A., Thüm, T., Mennicke, S., Meinicke, J., Schaefer, I.: Is There a Mismatch Between Real-World Feature Models and Product-Line Research? In: Proc. Europ. Software Engineering Conf./Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE), pp. 291–302. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2017). 10.1145/3106237.3106252
Valiant, L.G.: The complexity of enumeration and reliability problems. SIAM J. on Computing 8(3), 410–421 (1979)
Meinicke, J., Thüm, T., Schröter, R., Benduhn, F., Leich, T., Saake, G.: Mastering Software Variability with FeatureIDE. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61443-4
Hentze, M., Pett, T., Thüm, T., Schaefer, I.: Hyper Explanations for Feature-Model Defect Analysis. In: Proc. Int’l Working Conf. on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS). ACM, New York, NY, USA (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3442391.3442406
Heß, T., Sundermann, C., Thüm, T.: On the Scalability of Building Binary Decision Diagrams for Current Feature Models. In: Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pp. 131–135. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3461001.3474452
Sharma, S., Gupta, R., Roy, S., Meel, K.S.: Knowledge Compilation Meets Uniform Sampling. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning, pp. 620–636. EasyChair, Manchester, UK (2018)
Drechsler, R., Becker, B.: Binary Decision Diagrams: Theory and Implementation. Springer, Denver, CO, USA (1998)
Darwiche, A.: A Compiler for Deterministic, Decomposable Negation Normal Form. In: Proc. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 627–634. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, USA (2002)
Darwiche, A., Marquis, P.: A Knowledge Compilation Map. J. Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 17(1), 229–264 (2002)
Sundermann, C., Nieke, M., Bittner, P.M., Heß, T., Thüm, T., Schaefer, I.: Applications of #SAT Solvers on Feature Models. In: Proc. Int’l Working Conf. on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS). ACM, New York, NY, USA (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3442391.3442404
Krieter, S., Thüm, T., Schulze, S., Saake, G., Leich, T.: YASA: Yet Another Sampling Algorithm. In: Proc. Int’l Working Conf. on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS). ACM, New York, NY, USA (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3377024.3377042
Fernández-Amorós, D., Heradio, R., Cerrada, J.A., Cerrada, C.: A Scalable Approach to Exact Model and Commonality Counting for Extended Feature Models. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering (TSE) 40(9), 895–910 (2014)
Krieter, S., Schröter, R., Thüm, T., Saake, G.: An Efficient Algorithm for Feature-Model Slicing. Technical Report FIN-001-2016, University of Magdeburg, Germany (April 2016)
Segura, S.: Automated Analysis of Feature Models Using Atomic Sets. In: Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), vol. 2, pp. 201–207. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA (2008)
Acher, M., Heymans, P., Collet, P., Quinton, C., Lahire, P., Merle, P.: Feature Model Differences. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE), pp. 629–645. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31095-9_41
Johansen, M.F., Haugen, Ø., Fleurey, F.: An Algorithm for Generating T-Wise Covering Arrays from Large Feature Models. In: Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pp. 46–55. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2362536.2362547
Thüm, T., Batory, D., Kästner, C.: Reasoning About Edits to Feature Models. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 254–264. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2009.5070526
El-Sharkawy, S., Krafczyk, A., Schmid, K.: An Empirical Study of Configuration Mismatches in Linux. In: Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pp. 19–28. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3106195.3106208
Heradio, R., Pérez-Morago, H.J., Fernández-Amorós, D., Bean, R., Cabrerizo, F.J., Cerrada, C., Herrera-Viedma, E.: Binary Decision Diagram Algorithms to Perform Hard Analysis Operations on Variability Models. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Intelligent Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques (SOMET), pp. 139–154. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2016)
Mendonça, M., Wąsowski, A., Czarnecki, K., Cowan, D.: Efficient Compilation Techniques for Large Scale Feature Models. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Generative Programming and Component Engineering (GPCE), pp. 13–22. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2008)
Pohl, R., Lauenroth, K., Pohl, K.: A Performance Comparison of Contemporary Algorithmic Approaches for Automated Analysis Operations on Feature Models. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 313–322. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/ASE.2011.6100068
Baranov, E., Legay, A., Meel, K.S.: Baital: An Adaptive Weighted Sampling Approach for Improved t-Wise Coverage. In: Proc. Europ. Software Engineering Conf./Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE), pp. 1114–1126. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3368089.3409744
Sundermann, C., Raab, H., Heß, T., Thüm, T., Schaefer, I.: Exploiting d-DNNFs for Repetitive Counting Queries on Feature Models. Technical Report arXiv:2303.12383, Cornell University Library (March 2023). 10.48550/arXiv.2303.12383. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12383
Bourhis, P., Duchien, L., Dusart, J., Lonca, E., Marquis, P., Quinton, C.: Reasoning on Feature Models: Compilation-Based vs. Direct Approaches. Technical Report arXiv:2302.06867, Cornell University Library (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.06867
Darwiche, A.: SDD: A New Canonical Representation of Propositional Knowledge Bases, pp. 819–826. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, USA (2011)
Sundermann, C., Heß, T., Nieke, M., Bittner, P.M., Young, J.M., Thüm, T., Schaefer, I.: Evaluating State-of-the-Art #SAT Solvers on Industrial Configuration Spaces. Empir Softw Eng (EMSE) 28 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-022-10265-9
Liang, J.H., Ganesh, V., Czarnecki, K., Raman, V.: SAT-Based Analysis of Large Real-World Feature Models Is Easy. In: Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pp. 91–100. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2015)
Czarnecki, K., Wąsowski, A.: Feature Diagrams and Logics: There and Back Again. In: Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pp. 23–34. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA (2007)
Heradio, R., Fernández-Amorós, D., Mayr-Dorn, C., Egyed, A.: Supporting the Statistical Analysis of Variability Models. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 843–853. IEEE, New York, NY, USA (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2019.00091
Karpiński, M., Piotrów, M.: Encoding cardinality constraints using multiway merge selection networks. Constraints 24, 234–251 (2019)
Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an Efficient SAT Solver. In: Proc. Anual Conf. on Design Automation (DAC), pp. 530–535. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2001)
Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An Extensible SAT-solver. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT), pp. 502–518. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2004)
Sharma, S., Roy, S., Soos, M., Meel, K.S.: GANAK: A Scalable Probabilistic Exact Model Counter. In: Proc. Int’l Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), vol. 19, pp. 1169–1176. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, USA (2019)
Thurley, M.: sharpSAT - Counting Models with Advanced Component Caching and Implicit BCP. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT), pp. 424–429. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2006)
Muise, C., McIlraith, S.A., Beck, J.C., Hsu, E.I.: Dsharp: Fast d-dnnf compilation with sharpsat. In: Kosseim, L., Inkpen, D. (eds.) Advances in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 356–361. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2012)
Büning, H.K., Lettmann, T.: Propositional Logic: Deduction and Algorithms vol. 48. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom (1999)
Gu, J., Purdom, P.W., Franco, J., Wah, B.W.: Algorithms for the Satisfiability (SAT) Problem: A Survey. Technical report, Cincinnati University, OH, USA (1996)
Valiant, L.G.: The complexity of computing the permanent. Theoretical Computer Science 8(2), 189–201 (1979)
Heradio, R., Fernández-Amorós, D., Cerrada, J.A., Abad, I.: A literature review on feature diagram product counting and its usage in software product line economic models. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. (IJSEKE) 23(08), 1177–1204 (2013)
Krieter, S., Thüm, T., Schulze, S., Schröter, R., Saake, G.: Propagating Configuration Decisions with Modal Implication Graphs. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 898–909. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3180155.3180159
Oh, J., Gazzillo, P., Batory, D., Heule, M., Myers, M.: Scalable Uniform Sampling for Real-World Software Product Lines. Technical Report TR-20-01, The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Computer Science (2020)
Thüm, T., Kästner, C., Benduhn, F., Meinicke, J., Saake, G., Leich, T.: FeatureIDE: An extensible framework for feature-oriented software development. Science of Computer Programming (SCP) 79, 70–85 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2012.06.002
Zhang, W., Zhao, H., Mei, H.: A Propositional Logic-Based Method for Verification of Feature Models. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Formal Engineering Methods (ICFEM), pp. 115–130. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2004)
Halin, A., Nuttinck, A., Acher, M., Devroey, X., Perrouin, G., Baudry, B.: Test them all, is it worth it? Assessing configuration sampling on the JHipster web development stack. Empir. Softw. Eng. (EMSE) 24(2), 674–717 (2019)
Janota, M., Lynce, I., Marques-Silva, J.: Algorithms for computing backbones of propositional formulae. AI Commun. 28(2), 161–177 (2015)
Al-Hajjaji, M., Krieter, S., Thüm, T., Lochau, M., Saake, G.: IncLing: Efficient Product-line Testing Using Incremental Pairwise Sampling. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Generative Programming: Concepts & Experiences (GPCE), pp. 144–155. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2993236.2993253
Haslinger, E.N., Lopez-Herrejon, R.E., Egyed, A.: Using Feature Model Knowledge to Speed Up the Generation of Covering Arrays. In: Proc. Int’l Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS), pp. 16–1166. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2430502.2430524
Johansen, M.F., Haugen, Ø., Fleurey, F.: Properties of Realistic Feature Models Make Combinatorial Testing of Product Lines Feasible. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), pp. 638–652. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24485-8_47
Johansen, M.F., Haugen, Ø., Fleurey, F., Eldegard, A.G., Syversen, T.: Generating Better Partial Covering Arrays by Modeling Weights on Sub-Product Lines. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), pp. 269–284. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33666-9_18
Kowal, M., Schulze, S., Schaefer, I.: Towards Efficient SPL Testing by Variant Reduction. In: Proc. Int’l Workshop on Variability and Composition (VariComp), pp. 1–6. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2451617.2451619
Oster, S., Markert, F., Ritter, P.: Automated Incremental Pairwise Testing of Software Product Lines. In: Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pp. 196–210. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15579-6_14
Czarnecki, K., Kim, C.H.P.: Cardinality-Based Feature Modeling and Constraints: A Progress Report. In: Proc. Int’l Workshop on Software Factories (SF), pp. 16–20 (2005)
Bagheri, E., Noia, T.D., Gasevic, D., Ragone, A.: Formalizing interactive staged feature model configuration. J. Software: Evolution and Process 24(4), 375–400 (2012)
Clements, P.C., McGregor, J.D., Cohen, S.G.: The Structured Intuitive Model for Product Line Economics (SIMPLE). Technical report, Carnegie-Mellon University, PA, USA (2005)
Cohen, S.: Predicting When Product Line Investment Pays. Technical report, Carnegie-Mellon University, PY, USA (2003)
Chen, S., Erwig, M.: Optimizing the Product Derivation Process. In: Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pp. 35–44. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/SPLC.2011.47
Mazo, R., Dumitrescu, C., Salinesi, C., Diaz, D.: Recommendation Heuristics for Improving Product Line Configuration Processes. In: Recommendation Systems in Software Engineering, pp. 511–537. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2014)
Oh, J., Batory, D., Myers, M., Siegmund, N.: Finding Near-Optimal Configurations in Product Lines by Random Sampling. In: Proc. Int’l Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp. 61–71 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3106237.3106273
Aziz, R.A., Chu, G., Muise, C., Stuckey, P.: \(\#\exists \) SAT: Projected Model Counting. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT), pp. 121–137. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2015)
Acher, M., Collet, P., Lahire, P., France, R.B.: Slicing Feature Models. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 424–427. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/ASE.2011.6100089
Krieter, S., Schröter, R., Thüm, T., Fenske, W., Saake, G.: Comparing Algorithms for Efficient Feature-Model Slicing. In: Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pp. 60–64. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2934466.2934477
Fichte, J.K., Hecher, M., Morak, M., Woltran, S.: Exploiting Treewidth for Projected Model Counting and Its Limits. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT), pp. 165–184. Springer, Cham, Switzerland (2018)
Acher, M., Collet, P., Lahire, P., France, R.B.: Comparing Approaches to Implement Feature Model Composition. In: Proc. Europ. Conf. on Modelling Foundations and Applications (ECMFA), pp. 3–19. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2010)
Rice, M., Kulhari, S.: A Survey of Static Variable Ordering Heuristics for Efficient BDD/MDD Construction. Technical report, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA (2008)
Dowling, W.F., Gallier, J.H.: Linear-time algorithms for testing the satisfiability of propositional horn formulae. J. Log. Program. 1(3), 267–284 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1016/0743-1066(84)90014-1
Wang, J., Gu, W., Yin, M., Wang, D.: MCN and MO: Two Heuristic Strategies in Knowledge Compilation Using Extension Rule. In: International Conference on Signal Processing Systems (ICSPS), pp. 389–393 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSPS.2009.99
Huth, M., Ryan, M.: Logic in Computer Science: Modelling and Reasoning About Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom (2004)
Pipatsrisawat, K., Darwiche, A.: New Compilation Languages Based on Structured Decomposability. In: Proc. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), vol. 8, pp. 517–522. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, USA (2008)
Darwiche, A.: Decomposable negation normal form. J. ACM 48(4), 608–647 (2001)
Darwiche, A.: New Advances in Compiling CNF to Decomposable Negation Normal Form. In: Proc. Europ. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 318–322. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2004)
Lagniez, J.-M., Marquis, P.: An Improved Decision-DNNF Compiler. In: Proc. Int’l Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 667–673. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, USA (2017)
Muise, C., McIlraith, S., Beck, J.C., Hsu, E.: Fast d-DNNF Compilation with sharpSAT. In: Proc. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, USA (2010)
Koriche, F., Lagniez, J.-M., Marquis, P., Thomas, S.: Knowledge Compilation for Model Counting: Affine Decision Trees. In: Proc. Int’l Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, USA (2013)
Van den Broeck, G., Darwiche, A.: On the role of canonicity in knowledge compilation. Proc. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) 29(1) (2015). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9423
Nishino, M., Yasuda, N., Minato, S.-i., Nagata, M.: Zero-Suppressed Sentential Decision Diagrams. In: Proc. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 1058–1066. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, USA (2016)
Oztok, U., Darwiche, A.: An exhaustive DPLL algorithm for model counting 62(1), 1–32 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.11201
Bryant, R.E.: Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. on Computers C-35(8), 677–691 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1109/tc.1986.1676819
Jha, A., Suciu, D.: Knowledge compilation meets database theory: Compiling queries to decision diagrams. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT), pp. 162–173. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/1938551.1938574
Minato, S.-I.: Zero-Suppressed BDDs for Set Manipulation in Combinatorial Problems. In: Proc. Anual Conf. on Design Automation (DAC), pp. 272–277. ACM, New York, NY, USA (1993)
Razgon, I.: On oblivious branching programs with bounded repetition that cannot efficiently compute CNFS of bounded treewidth. Theory of Computing Systems 61(3), 755–776 (2017)
Vinkhuijzen, L., Laarman, A.: The Power of Disjoint Support Decompositions in Decision Diagrams. In: NASA Formal Methods Symposium (NFM), pp. 790–799. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2022)
van Dijk, T., Wille, R., Meolic, R.: Tagged BDDs: Combining Reduction Rules from Different Decision Diagram Types. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 108–115 (2017). IEEE
Bova, S.: Sdds are exponentially more succinct than obdds. Proc. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) 30(1) (2016). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v30i1.10107
Oztok, U., Darwiche, A.: On Compiling CNF into Decision-DNNF. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP), pp. 42–57. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2014)
Pett, T., Krieter, S., Thüm, T., Lochau, M., Schaefer, I.: AutoSMP: An Evaluation Platform for Sampling Algorithms. In: Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pp. 41–44. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3461002.3473073
Nieke, M., Mauro, J., Seidl, C., Thüm, T., Yu, I.C., Franzke, F.: Anomaly Analyses for Feature-Model Evolution. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Generative Programming: Concepts & Experiences (GPCE), pp. 188–201. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3278122.3278123
Pett, T., Thüm, T., Runge, T., Krieter, S., Lochau, M., Schaefer, I.: Product Sampling for Product Lines: The Scalability Challenge. In: Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pp. 78–83. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3336294.3336322
Oztok, U., Darwiche, A.: A Top-Down Compiler for Sentential Decision Diagrams. In: Proc. Int’l Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 3141–3148. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, USA (2015)
Somenzi, F.: Efficient Manipulation of Decision Diagrams. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Trans. (STTT) 3(2), 171–181 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s100090100042
Janssen, G.: A Consumer Report on BDD Packages. In: Proc. Symposium on Integrated Circuits and Systems Design (SBCCI), pp. 217–222. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, USA (2003)
Toda, T., Soh, T.: Implementing Efficient All Solutions SAT Solvers. ACM J. of Experimental Algorithmics (JEA) 21(1), 1–12111244 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2975585
Pett, T., Krieter, S., Runge, T., Thüm, T., Lochau, M., Schaefer, I.: Stability of Product-Line Sampling in Continuous Integration. In: Proc. Int’l Working Conf. on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS). ACM, New York, NY, USA (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3442391.3442410
Hutter, F., Hoos, H.H., Leyton-Brown, K.: Sequential model-based optimization for general algorithm configuration. In: Learning and Intelligent Optimization: 5th International Conference, LION 5, Rome, Italy, January 17-21, 2011. Selected Papers 5, pp. 507–523 (2011). Springer
Coy, S.P., Golden, B.L., Runger, G.C., Wasil, E.A.: Using Experimental Design to Find Effective Parameter Settings for Heuristics. Journal of Heuristics 7, 77–97 (2001)
Tseytin, G.S.: On the Complexity of Derivation in Propositional Calculus, pp. 466–483. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-81955-1_28
Voronov, A., Åkesson, K., Ekstedt, F.: Enumeration of Valid Partial Configurations. In: Proc. Configuration Workshop (ConfWS), vol. 755, pp. 25–31. ceur-ws.org, Aachen, Germany (2011)
Galindo, J.A., Benavides, D., Trinidad, P., Gutiírrez-Fernández, A.-M., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: Automated analysis of feature models: Quo Vadis? Computing 101(5), 387–433 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-018-0646-1
Janota, M., Kiniry, J., Botterweck, G.: Formal Methods in Software Product Lines: Concepts, Survey, and Guidelines. Technical Report Lero-TR-SPL-2008-02, Lero, University of Limerick (May 2008)
Lutz, R.: Survey of Product-Line Verification and Validation Techniques. Technical Report 2014/41221, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, La Canada Flintridge, CA, USA (May 2007)
Schobbens, P.-Y., Heymans, P., Trigaux, J.-C.: Feature Diagrams: A Survey and a Formal Semantics. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Requirements Engineering (RE), pp. 136–145. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA (2006). https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2006.23
Varshosaz, M., Al-Hajjaji, M., Thüm, T., Runge, T., Mousavi, M.R., Schaefer, I.: A Classification of Product Sampling for Software Product Lines. In: Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pp. 1–13. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3233027.3233035
Medeiros, F., Kästner, C., Ribeiro, M., Gheyi, R., Apel, S.: A Comparison of 10 Sampling Algorithms for Configurable Systems. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 643–654. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884793
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interests
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Sundermann, C., Kuiter, E., Heß, T. et al. On the benefits of knowledge compilation for feature-model analyses. Ann Math Artif Intell (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-023-09906-6
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-023-09906-6