research-article

SAT-based analysis of feature models is easy

Authors:

Marcilio Mendonca,

Andrzej Wąsowski,

Krzysztof CzarneckiAuthors Info & Claims

SPLC '09: Proceedings of the 13th International Software Product Line Conference

Pages 231 - 240

Published: 24 August 2009 Publication History

Abstract

Feature models are a popular variability modeling notation used in product line engineering. Automated analyses of feature models, such as consistency checking and interactive or offline product selection, often rely on translating models to propositional logic and using satisfiability (SAT) solvers.

Efficiency of individual satisfiability-based analyses has been reported previously. We generalize and quantify these studies with a series of independent experiments. We show that previously reported efficiency is not incidental. Unlike with the general SAT instances, which fall into easy and hard classes, the instances induced by feature modeling are easy throughout the spectrum of realistic models. In particular, the phenomenon of phase transition is not observed for realistic feature models.

Our main practical conclusion is a general encouragement for researchers to continued development of SAT-based methods to further exploit this efficiency in future.

References

[1]

D. Achlioptas, L. Kirousis, E. Kranakis, and D. Krizanc. Rigorous results for random (2 + p)-SAT. Theoretical Computer Science, 265(1):109--129, 2001.

Digital Library

[2]

V. Alves, R. Gheyi, T. Massoni, U. Kulesza, P. Borba, and C. Lucena. Refactoring product lines. In GPCE '06, pages 201--210. ACM, 2006.

Digital Library

[3]

H. R. Andersen. Binary Decision Diagrams. Department of Information Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark, 1997. Lecture notes for 49285 Advanced Algorithms E97, http://www.itu.dk/people/hra/notes-index.html.

[4]

M. Antkiewicz and K. Czarnecki. FeaturePlugin: Feature modeling plug-in for Eclipse. In OOPSLA'04 Eclipse Technology eXchange (ETX) Workshop, 2004. Paper available from http://www.swen.uwaterloo.ca/~kczarnec/etx04.pdf. Software available from gp.uwaterloo.ca/fmp.

Digital Library

[5]

M. Antkiewicz and K. Czarnecki. Framework-specific modeling languages with round-trip engineering. In O. Nierstrasz, J. Whittle, D. Harel, and G. Reggio, editors, MoDELS, volume 4199 of LNCS, pages 692--706. Springer, 2006.

Digital Library

[6]

D. Batory, D. Benavides, and A. Ruiz-Cortes. Automated analysis of feature models: challenges ahead. Commun. ACM, 49(12):45--47, 2006.

Digital Library

[7]

D. S. Batory. Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas. In Software Product Lines, 9th Int. Conference, SPLC 2005, Rennes, France, September 26--29, 2005, Proceedings, volume 3714 of LNCS, pages 7--20. Springer, 2005.

Digital Library

[8]

D. Benavides. On the Automated Analysis of Software Product Lines Using Feature Models. A Framework for Developing Automated Tool Support. PhD thesis, University of Seville, Spain, June 2007. Available from http://www.lsi.us.es/~dbc/dbc_archivos/pubs/benavides07-phd.pdf.

[9]

D. Benavides, S. Segura, P. Trinidad, and A. Ruiz-Cortes. FAMA: Tooling a framework for the automated analysis of feature models. VAMOS 2007, pages 129--134, 2007.

[10]

D. Benavides, P. Trinidad, and A. Ruiz-Cortes. Automated reasoning on feature models. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'05), Porto, Portugal, 2005, LNCS. Springer, 2005.

Digital Library

[11]

D. L. Berre, A. Parrain, O. Roussel, and L. Sais. SAT4J: A satisfiability library for Java, 2005. http://www.objectweb.org/phorum/download.php/16,291/sat4j-D-Le-Berre.pdf.

[12]

D. Beuche. pure::variants Eclipse Plugin. User Guide. pure-systems GmbH. Available from http://web.pure-systems.com/fileadmin/downloads/pv_userguide.pdf, 2004.

[13]

Y. Bontemps, P. Heymans, P. Schobbens, and J. Trigaux. Generic semantics of feature diagrams variants. In Features Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems VIII(ICFI'05), pages 58--77, Leicester, UK, Jun 2005.

[14]

R. E. Bryant. Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 35(8):677--691, Aug. 1986.

Digital Library

[15]

S. A. Cook. The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In STOC '71: Proceedings of the third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 151--158, New York, NY, USA, 1971. ACM.

Digital Library

[16]

N. Creignou, S. Khanna, and M. Sudan. Complexity of Classifications of Boolean Constraint Satisfaction Problems. SIAM Monographs on discrete Mathematics and Applications. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), 2001.

Digital Library

[17]

K. Czarnecki and U. W. Eisenecker. Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, 2000.

Digital Library

[18]

K. Czarnecki and A. Wasowski. Feature models and logics: There and back again. In Proceedings of 10th Int. Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2007). IEEE Press, 2007.

Digital Library

[19]

M. Davis, G. Logemann, and D. Loveland. A machine program for theorem proving. Commun. ACM, 5(7):394--397, 1962.

Digital Library

[20]

E. Friedgut. Sharp thresholds of graph properties, and the k-SAT problem. J. Amer. Math. Soc, 12:1017--1054, 1999.

[21]

R. Gheyi, T. Massoni, and P. Borba. A theory for feature models in Alloy. In First Alloy Workshop, pages 71--80, Portland, United States, November 2006.

[22]

A. Goerdt. A threshold for unsatisfiability. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 53(3):469--486, 1996.

Digital Library

[23]

T. Hadzic, R. Jensen, and H. R. Andersen. Notes on calculating valid domains. Manuscript online http://www.itu.dk/~tarik/cvd/cvd.pdf, 2006.

[24]

T. Hadzic, R. M. Jensen, and H. R. Andersen. Calculating valid domains for BDD-based interactive configuration. CoRR, abs/0704.1394, 2007.

[25]

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 Conference, pages 131--138. DTU-tryk, June 2004.

[26]

B. A. Huberman and T. Hogg. Phase transitions in artificial intelligence systems. Artif. Intell., 33(2):155--171, 1987.

Digital Library

[27]

M. Janota. Do SAT solvers make good configurators? In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Analyses of Software Product Lines, September 2008.

[28]

M. Janota and J. Kiniry. Reasoning about feature models in higher-order logic. In Software Product Line Conference, 2007. SPLC 2007. 11th Int., pages 13--22, 2007.

Digital Library

[29]

K. Kang, S. Cohen, J. Hess, W. Nowak, and S. Peterson. Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, Nov. 1990.

[30]

C. W. Krueger. Software mass customization. White paper, Oct. 2001.

[31]

T. Leich, S. Apel, L. Marnitz, and G. Saake. Tool support for feature-oriented software development: featureIDE: an Eclipse-based approach. In eclipse '05: Proceedings of the 2005 OOPSLA workshop on Eclipse technology eXchange, pages 55--59, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM.

Digital Library

[32]

M. Mendonca. Efficient Reasoning Techniques for Large Scale Feature Models. PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo, Jan 2009. Available from http://hdl.handle.net/10012/4201.

[33]

M. Mendonca. SPLOT (Software Product Line Online Tools) website, 2009. Available at: http://www.splot-research.org.

Digital Library

[34]

M. Mendonca, A. Wasowski, K. Czarnecki, and D. D. Cowan. Efficient compilation techniques for large scale feature models. In Int. Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering (GPCE'08), pages 13--22, 2008.

Digital Library

[35]

A. Metzger, K. Pohl, P. Heymans, P.-Y. Schobbens, and G. Saval. Disambiguating the documentation of variability in software product lines: A separation of concerns, formalization and automated analysis. Requirements Engineering, IEEE Int. Conference on, 0:243--253, 2007.

[36]

D. Mitchell, B. Selman, and H. Levesque. Hard and easy distributions of SAT problems. In Proceedings of the 10th National Conference on AI - American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pages 459--465, 1992.

[37]

R. Monasson, R. Zecchina, S. Kirkpatrick, B. Selman, and L. Troyansky. 2+p-SAT: Relation of typical-case complexity to the nature of the phase transition, 1999.

[38]

C. Papadimitriou. Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley, 1994.

[39]

K. Pohl, G. Böckle, and F. J. van der Linden. Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA, 2005.

[40]

S. Segura and A. Ruiz-Cortéz. Benchmarking on the automated analyses of feature models: A preliminary roadmap. In Third Int. Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-intensive System (VAMOS), 2009.

[41]

T. J. Shaefer. The complexity of satisfiability problems. In Conference Record of the Tenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 216--226. ACM Press, May 1978.

Digital Library

[42]

B. M. Smith. Locating the phase transition in constraint satisfaction problems. In Artificial Intelligence, 1994.

[43]

T. Thum, D. Batory, and C. Kastner. Reasoning about edits to feature models. In 31th Int. Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, May 2009.

Digital Library

[44]

P. Trinidad, D. Benavides, and A. Ruiz-Cortés. Isolated features detection in feature models. In CAiSE Short Paper Proceedings, 2006.

[45]

P. Trinidad, D. Benavides, A. Ruiz-Cortes, S. Segura, and A. Jimenez. FAMA framework. Software Product Line Conference, 2008. SPLC '08. 12th Int., pages 359--359, Sept. 2008.

Digital Library

[46]

B. Vandegriend and J. Culberson. The G _{n, m} phase transition is not hard for the Hamiltonian cycle problem. Journal of Arti Intelligence Research, 9:9--219, 1998.

Digital Library

[47]

J. White, D. Schmidt, D. Benavides, P. Trinidad, and A. Ruiz-Cortes ands. Automated diagnosis of product-line configuration errors in feature models. Software Product Line Conference, 2008. SPLC '08. 12th Int., pages 225--234, Sept. 2008.

Digital Library

[48]

K. Xu and W. Li. Exact phase transitions in random constraint satisfaction problems. CoRR, cs.AI/0004005, 2000.

Digital Library

Cited By

Bombarda AGargantini A(2024)On the Use of Multi-valued Decision Diagrams to Count Valid Configurations of Feature ModelsProceedings of the 28th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference10.1145/3646548.3672594(96-106)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3646548.3672594
Marussy KFicsor ASemeráth OVarró DRoychoudhury APaiva AAbreu RStorey M(2024)Refinery: Graph Solver as a ServiceProceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings10.1145/3639478.3640045(64-68)Online publication date: 14-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3639478.3640045
Martou PDuhoux BMens KLegay A(2024)Combinatorial Transition Testing in Dynamically Adaptive SystemsProceedings of the 18th International Working Conference on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems10.1145/3634713.3634726(1-10)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3634713.3634726
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

SAT-based analysis of large real-world feature models is easy
SPLC '15: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Product Line

Modern conflict-driven clause-learning (CDCL) Boolean SAT solvers provide efficient automatic analysis of real-world feature models (FM) of systems ranging from cars to operating systems. It is well-known that solver-based analysis of real-world FMs ...
A modular CNF-based SAT solver
SBCCI '10: Proceedings of the 23rd symposium on Integrated circuits and system design

The state-of-the-art SAT solvers, such as Chaff [11], zChaff [18], BerkMin [5], and Minisat [2] usually share the same core techniques, for instance: the watched literals structures conflict clause recording and non-chronological backtracking. ...
Solving SAT and SAT Modulo Theories: From an abstract Davis--Putnam--Logemann--Loveland procedure to DPLL(T)

We first introduce Abstract DPLL, a rule-based formulation of the Davis--Putnam--Logemann--Loveland (DPLL) procedure for propositional satisfiability. This abstract framework allows one to cleanly express practical DPLL algorithms and to formally reason ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

SPLC '09: Proceedings of the 13th International Software Product Line Conference

August 2009

319 pages

Conference Chair:
Dirk Muthig
Lufthansa Systems Passenger Services GmbH, Germany
,
Program Chair:
John D. McGregor
Clemson University

Publisher

Carnegie Mellon University

United States

Publication History

Published: 24 August 2009

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

SPLC '09

SPLC '09: 13th International Software Product Line Conference

August 24 - 28, 2009

California, San Francisco, USA

Acceptance Rates

SPLC '09 Paper Acceptance Rate 30 of 82 submissions, 37%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 167 of 463 submissions, 36%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

95
Total Citations
View Citations
658
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)21
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

Reflects downloads up to 07 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Bombarda AGargantini A(2024)On the Use of Multi-valued Decision Diagrams to Count Valid Configurations of Feature ModelsProceedings of the 28th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference10.1145/3646548.3672594(96-106)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3646548.3672594
Marussy KFicsor ASemeráth OVarró DRoychoudhury APaiva AAbreu RStorey M(2024)Refinery: Graph Solver as a ServiceProceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings10.1145/3639478.3640045(64-68)Online publication date: 14-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3639478.3640045
Martou PDuhoux BMens KLegay A(2024)Combinatorial Transition Testing in Dynamically Adaptive SystemsProceedings of the 18th International Working Conference on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems10.1145/3634713.3634726(1-10)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3634713.3634726
Lima RBezerra CMachado I(2023)A Self-Adaptation Mechanism for Variability Management in Dynamic Software Product LinesProceedings of the 17th Brazilian Symposium on Software Components, Architectures, and Reuse10.1145/3622748.3622754(51-60)Online publication date: 25-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3622748.3622754
Heß TSundermann CThüm TMousavi MSchobbens P(2021)On the scalability of building binary decision diagrams for current feature modelsProceedings of the 25th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume A10.1145/3461001.3474452(131-135)Online publication date: 6-Sep-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3461001.3474452
Krieter SArens RNieke MSundermann CHeß TThüm TSeidl CMousavi MSchobbens P(2021)Incremental construction of modal implication graphs for evolving feature modelsProceedings of the 25th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume A10.1145/3461001.3471148(64-74)Online publication date: 6-Sep-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3461001.3471148
Nieke MMauro JSeidl CThüm TYu IFranzke F(2020)Anomaly analyses for feature-model evolutionACM SIGPLAN Notices10.1145/3393934.327812353:9(188-201)Online publication date: 7-Apr-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3393934.3278123
Sundermann CThüm TSchaefer I(2020)Evaluating #SAT solvers on industrial feature modelsProceedings of the 14th International Working Conference on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems10.1145/3377024.3377025(1-9)Online publication date: 5-Feb-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3377024.3377025
Fernandez-Amoros DHeradio RMayr-Dorn CEgyed A(2019)A Kconfig Translation to Logic with One-Way Validation SystemProceedings of the 23rd International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume A10.1145/3336294.3336313(303-308)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3336294.3336313
Beek MDamiani FLienhardt MMazzanti FPaolini L(2019)Static Analysis of Featured Transition SystemsProceedings of the 23rd International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume A10.1145/3336294.3336295(39-51)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3336294.3336295
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten