Configuration Repair via Flow Networks

  • Ingo Feinerer
  • Gerhard Niederbrucker
  • Gernot Salzer
  • Tanja Sisel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7661)


Reconfiguration and configuration repair are central tasks when designing and maintaining long-lived systems. Specifications evolve over time and modifying existing configurations in the hardware domain is prohibitively expensive. Consequently there is a demand for efficient methods to repair and change existing configurations where the number of components and a given layout of links between them is given. We present an efficient approach using network flow algorithms for finding and optimising links between a topology of components. This provides a natural formalism for modelling reconfiguration tasks and repairing configurations.


formal methods configuration repair class diagrams unified modeling language (UML) integer linear programming (ILP) flow networks 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ahuja, R.K., Magnanti, T.L., Orlin, J.B.: Network flows – theory, algorithms and applications. Prentice Hall (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aschinger, M., Drescher, C., Gottlob, G.: Introducing LoCo, a logic for configuration problems. In: Proceedings of LoCoCo 2011, Perugia, Italy (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Charnes, A., Klingman, D.: The more for less paradox in the distribution model. Cahiers du Centre d’Etudes de Recherche Operationelle 13(1), 11–22 (1971)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Falkner, A., Feinerer, I., Salzer, G., Schenner, G.: Computing product configurations via UML and integer linear programming. Int. J. Mass Cust. 3(4) (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feinerer, I., Salzer, G.: Consistency and minimality of UML class specifications with multiplicities and uniqueness constraints. In: Proceedings of TASE 2007, pp. 411–420. IEEE Computer Society Press (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feinerer, I., Salzer, G., Sisel, T.: Reducing Multiplicities in Class Diagrams. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6981, pp. 379–393. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Felfernig, A., Friedrich, G., Jannach, D.: UML as domain specific language for the construction of knowledge-based configuration systems. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 10(4), 449–469 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Felfernig, A., Friedrich, G., Jannach, D.: Conceptual modeling for configuration of mass-customizable products. AI in Engineering 15(2), 165–176 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedrich, G., Ryabokon, A., Falkner, A.A., Haselböck, A., Schenner, G., Schreiner, H.: (Re)configuration based on model generation. In: Drescher, C., Lynce, I., Treinen, R. (eds.) Proceedings of LoCoCo 2011. EPTCS, vol. 65, pp. 26–35 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lenzerini, M., Nobili, P.: On the satisfiability of dependency constraints in entity-relationship schemata. Information Systems 15(4), 453–461 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mailharro, D.: A classification and constraint-based framework for configuration. AI EDAM 12(4), 383–397 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Männistö, T., Soininen, T., Tiihonen, J., Sulonen, R.: Framework and conceptual model for reconfiguration. Tech. rep., AAAI Conf. Workshop. AAAI Press (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Niederbrucker, G., Sisel, T.: Clews Website (2011),
  14. 14.
    Stumptner, M., Wotawa, F.: Model-based reconfiguration. In: Proceedings Artificial Intelligence in Design, pp. 45–64. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingo Feinerer
    • 1
  • Gerhard Niederbrucker
    • 2
  • Gernot Salzer
    • 1
  • Tanja Sisel
    • 1
  1. 1.Technische Universität WienViennaAustria
  2. 2.Universität WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations