Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 99 references

How Low Can We Go? Minimizing Interaction Samples for Configurable Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A weak-duality theorem for t-wise interaction sampling says every mutually exclusive set of interactions is a lower-bound certificate, and the SampLNS algorithm uses it to find—and often prove—minimal samples for configurable software…

desk verdict Correct duality result, strong engineering, but the 63% headline is unsupported and the optimality certificates inherit an untested completeness assumption on the extracted interaction set. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06788 v1 pith:YTBSABNM submitted 2025-01-12 cs.SE math.OC

Dominik Krupke , Ahmad Moradi , Michael Perk , Phillip Keldenich , Gabriel Gehrke , Sebastian Krieter , Thomas Thüm , Sándor P. Fekete This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SEmath.OC
keywords t-wiseinteractionsamplingconfigurablesoftwaresystemsfeaturemodelssample-sizeminimizationdualitylowerboundslargeneighborhoodsearchoptimalitycertificates
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Configurable software can have millions of valid configurations, and testing every one is infeasible. This paper attacks the resulting combinatorial question: what is the smallest set of configurations that still contains every valid interaction among up to t features? The central claim is a weak-duality theorem: any collection of pairwise mutually exclusive interactions—interactions that can never be realized in the same configuration—is a lower bound on the size of any full-coverage sample, so finding the largest such collection certifies how low any sample can go. The authors implement this as SampLNS, which runs two large-neighborhood searches in parallel, one shrinking a candidate sample and one growing a mutually exclusive set, and stops when the two sizes meet; on 47 feature models from the literature, they report smaller samples than prior methods in 85% of cases and provable optimality for 63% of all instances. If these results hold, researchers and practitioners no longer need to compare sampling heuristics blindly against each other: a matching lower bound turns the best sample into a certified optimum.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the compatibility graph of valid interactions: vertices are valid t-wise interactions, and an edge joins two interactions exactly when some valid configuration contains both. A set of mutually exclusive interactions is then an independent set, and the theorem says every independent set is a valid lower bound. The upper-bound side, SampLNS, selects a subset S′ of the current sample to delete, collects the interactions that S′ alone covered, and invokes a CP-SAT model (OptSample) that optimally repairs that subset as quickly as possible. The lower-bound side, LB-LNS, selects a subset E′ of the current mutually exclusive set to delete and invokes a binary-programming model (OptLB) that exactly solves the restricted independent-set problem on the interactions compatible with the remainder. Running the two loops concurrently lets the lower and upper bounds converge, and when they meet, optimality is certified.

What would settle it

Run SampLNS on a model where it reports equal lower and upper bounds, then independently enumerate all valid pairwise interactions (e.g., by SAT enumeration) and solve the full sample-minimization problem to proven optimality on that same model; a missing valid interaction in SampLNS's interaction set, or a feasible sample smaller than its reported lower bound, would refute the certificate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core discovery is Theorem 1: the problem of finding a maximum-cardinality set of mutually exclusive t-wise interactions is weakly dual to the problem of finding a minimum-cardinality complete t-wise interaction sample. Two interactions are mutually exclusive if no valid configuration contains both; because every configuration in a sample can cover at most one member of a mutually exclusive set, any sample that covers all valid interactions must have at least as many configurations as the set has members. Thus every feasible set of mutually exclusive interactions is a lower-bound certificate, and equality with the size of a feasible sample proves that sample optimal. SampLNS operationalizes this identity by maintaining an upper bound, a heuristic sample improved by deleting blocks of configurations and optimally repairing the uncovered interactions with CP-SAT, and a lower bound, a heuristic mutually exclusive set improved by restricted maximum-independent-set solves with a MIP solver, and it combines the two searches in one parallel process. In the empirical evaluation, the authors report SampLNS matching or beating all previous sampling algorithms on 40 of 47 models and closing the gap to prove optimality in the majority of cases.

Load-bearing premise

The empirical optimality certificates assume the starting sample already contains every valid interaction of the feature model, because SampLNS extracts its interaction list from that sample and never independently enumerates all valid interactions; any interaction the starting sample missed would be invisible to the lower bound and to the coverage check.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Matching lower and upper bounds turn a heuristic sample into a certified minimal sample, so on solved instances no future heuristic can beat the result and testing budgets can be fixed with certainty.
  • For instances where the bounds do not meet, the gap between them is a hard upper limit on possible further savings, letting practitioners distinguish systems that are essentially solved from those worth additional algorithmic effort.
  • The benchmark results indicate that previous greedy samplers were often far from optimal: for at least 28 of the 47 models the best prior sample was more than 20% above the new lower bound, so the observed improvements are real reductions in test effort.
  • Because SampLNS's final sample quality barely changes when the initial sample comes from different algorithms, the method can be initialized with the fastest available sampler and still converge to nearly the same result.
  • On the largest certified model, EMBToolkit with 1,179 features and 5,414 clauses, the paper reports a provably minimal sample, showing that the certificates can scale to industrial-size configurable systems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The duality theorem is stated for arbitrary t, not only pairwise interactions, so the same lower-bound machinery transfers to 3-wise and higher-strength sampling once mutual exclusiveness can be detected for larger tuples; the paper's evaluation is pairwise.
  • The compatibility-graph view reconnects t-wise interaction sampling to the maximum independent set problem, so advances in exact and heuristic independent-set solving could directly tighten the lower bounds on instances where the gap remains large.
  • The destroy-and-repair loop only needs to know which interactions become uncovered after deleting configurations, so a similar sampler could certify other coverage criteria, such as partial t-wise or distance-based coverage, without changing the logic of the certificate.
  • For product lines where each tested configuration is expensive to assemble, a certified lower bound converts test effort from an unknown risk into a hard number: even without optimality, the remaining gap tells a planner exactly how much headroom is left.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a duality-based framework for the t-wise interaction sampling problem (t-ISP). It proves that the problem of finding a maximum-cardinality set of mutually exclusive valid interactions is weakly dual to finding a minimum-cardinality complete t-wise sample (Theorem 1), and uses feasible dual solutions as lower bounds. On the algorithmic side, it introduces LB-LNS for lower bounds and SampLNS for upper bounds, combining a YASA initial sample with large neighborhood search and CP-SAT repairs. The authors evaluate SampLNS on 47 feature models from the literature, reporting that it improves on previous algorithms for 40/47 models and that a majority of the resulting samples can be certified optimal by matching upper and lower bounds.

Significance. If the claims withstand scrutiny, this is a substantial contribution to configurable-system testing: it replaces purely heuristic sample-size comparisons with rigorous quality certificates, gives a genuinely weak-dual lower bound that does not depend on fitted constants, and ships reproducible code and data. The core duality argument is elementary and correct, and the empirical protocol has real strengths: five runs per configuration, multiple baselines, coverage-equality checks, and a separate experiment on the influence of the initial sample. The main caveats are that the formal CP-SAT model in Section 4.1 contains an apparent implication-direction error, the empirical optimality certificates inherit an untested completeness assumption on the extracted interaction set, and the abstract's 63% optimality figure conflicts with the body's 26/47 (55%).

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (4)–(8)] The formal CP-SAT model is inconsistent with its surrounding text. Equation (5) is written as u_i ⇒ y_i^I, but the text says that this 'prevents deactivated copies of sample configurations from covering interactions.' As written, an inactive copy (u_i = 0) can still set y_i^I = 1 and cover interactions, while an active copy (u_i = 1) is forced to cover every interaction in I. The objective in Eq. (4) therefore does not minimize the number of used configurations as intended. The correct constraint is y_i^I ⇒ u_i. The released implementation may implement the intended semantics, but the manuscript as written is not a faithful description of the model behind OptSample.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Section 6.4] The soundness of the lower-bound certificates and hence the 'provable optimality' results depends on I being the complete set of all valid pairwise interactions. Section 3.1 states that I 'can efficiently be extracted from a given feasible sample,' and Algorithm 2 initializes from a YASA(m=1) sample. Section 6.4 verifies the optimized samples only by checking equality between the interactions of the initial and optimized samples; it never independently enumerates the full set of valid interactions. If the initial sample missed a valid pair, Property 1 and constraint (2) would treat that pair as invalid, potentially declaring genuinely compatible interactions mutually exclusive and inflating the lower bound. In that case a reported UB=LB match would not certify optimality. Please add an independent completeness check of I (e.g., enumerate all valid pairs via SAT or FeatureIDE) and report the outcome for all 47 models.
  3. [Abstract and Section 6.2.2] The abstract claims that SampLNS can 'achieve and prove optimality of solutions for 63% of all instances,' but Section 6.2.2, Table 1, and the Conclusion consistently report 26 of 47 instances, i.e., approximately 55%. Please reconcile the abstract with the body, or explicitly define the different counting rule (e.g., including extended 3h runs or near-optimal solutions) that produces 63%.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2] The formal definition says an interaction is a subset of exactly t literals, while the introduction says 'every valid combination of t or less features.' For pairwise sampling the distinction does not affect the results, but the definitions should be aligned.
  2. [Section 2.4] There is a typo: 'Minium Vertex Cover' should be 'Minimum Vertex Cover.'
  3. [Section 6.3.2] The feature model name 'FreeBDS-8_0_0' should be 'FreeBSD-8_0_0.'
  4. [Figure 3] Figure 3 lists ACTS-IPOF-FT, ACTS-IPOG-FT, ACTS-IPOF-CSP, and ACTS-IPOG-CSP, but Section 6.1 describes only Chvátal, ICPL, IPOG, IncLing, and YASA as the selected baseline algorithms. Please clarify how the ACTS variants were obtained and why they are not described in the experiment-design section.
  5. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'the set of all valid interactions, I, can efficiently be extracted from a given feasible sample' should say 'from a complete t-wise sample'; otherwise the sentence is circular, since a feasible sample in the sense of Section 2.2 already covers all interactions in I.
  6. [Table 1] The bottom-row notation 'optimality 7 ≥ 26 [15%] [55%]' is cryptic. Please spell out that 7/47 baseline solutions and at least 26/47 SampLNS solutions match the lower bound, and define the percentages explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dual lower bound is an independent certificate, and the empirical claims rest on a completeness assumption rather than on a fitted or self-referential construction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. Theorem 1 is a genuine weak-duality inequality: any feasible set of mutually exclusive interactions E and any complete sample S satisfy |E| ≤ |S| by a pigeonhole argument, independent of how E or S was computed. The lower bound is therefore not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; LB-LNS simply searches for feasible E, and every feasible E is a valid certificate. The CP-SAT/LNS upper bound covers the interaction set used in the formulation, and equality UB=LB yields a valid optimality certificate conditional on I being the full set of valid interactions. That condition is an empirical completeness assumption, not a circular derivation: Section 3.1 states that 'the set of all valid interactions, I, can efficiently be extracted from a given feasible sample,' and Section 6.4 validates by checking equality between the initial and optimized samples' interactions rather than by independent enumeration. This is a soundness/completeness risk in the benchmark pipeline, but it does not reduce the claimed result to its own input. Self-citations are also not load-bearing: YASA supplies the initial sample, but RQ4 shows SampLNS produces nearly identical optimized samples from YASA(m=1), YASA(m=10), ICPL, and IncLing, so the main empirical outcome does not depend on the authors' own sampler. The discrepancy between the abstract's 63% optimality claim and the body's 55% (26/47) is an internal reporting inconsistency, not circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the lower-bound certificates have independent mathematical content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The lower-bound theorem is self-contained and does not rely on fitted constants. The only hand-chosen numbers are algorithmic thresholds that trade runtime against search breadth; they do not enter the correctness argument. The empirical claims assume the initial sample and the solver stack behave as specified. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Initial threshold gamma (lower-bound subproblem size) = 1000
    Section 5: LB-LNS keeps |I'| below gamma=1000, then adapts it by 10% based on iteration speed.
  • Initial threshold phi (SampLNS uncovered interactions) = 250
    Section 5: SampLNS grows S' until uncovered interactions exceed phi=250, then adapts by 25%.
  • Per-step time limits = 60 s for SampLNS steps, 180 s for lower-bound experiments
    Section 6.1: These are experiment design choices controlling how often the optimizer is called; they affect performance but not correctness.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Pigeonhole principle and the definition of mutual exclusiveness imply any complete sample needs at least |E| configurations.
    Used in Theorem 1; if a sample had fewer configurations than |E|, two mutually exclusive interactions would be forced into one configuration.
  • domain assumption Feature model validity is correctly captured by the CNF clause set D over concrete features.
    Section 2.1 defines valid configurations as assignments satisfying all clauses; errors here would change which interactions are valid and invalidate lower-bound enumeration.
  • domain assumption YASA(m=1) returns a complete pairwise sample for every benchmark model, so the extracted interaction set I equals the set of all valid interactions.
    Section 4.2 initializes SampLNS from YASA and Section 6.1 selects algorithms guaranteed to produce 100% pairwise coverage; the paper does not independently verify this guarantee.
  • domain assumption CP-SAT, Gurobi, and the embedded SAT calls return correct feasible or optimal answers for the subproblems they are given.
    Section 2.3 and Section 6.1 rely on or-tools and Gurobi as correct solvers; a solver bug would invalidate both upper and lower bound values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How Low Can We Go? Minimizing Interaction Samples for Configurable Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YTBSABNM

@misc{pith2026250106788,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How Low Can We Go? Minimizing Interaction Samples for Configurable Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YTBSABNM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06788}
}
read the original abstract

Modern software systems are typically configurable, a fundamental prerequisite for wide applicability and reusability. This flexibility poses an extraordinary challenge for quality assurance, as the enormous number of possible configurations makes it impractical to test each of them separately. This is where t-wise interaction sampling can be used to systematically cover the configuration space and detect unknown feature interactions. Over the last two decades, numerous algorithms for computing small interaction samples have been studied, providing improvements for a range of heuristic results; nevertheless, it has remained unclear how much these results can still be improved. We present a significant breakthrough: a fundamental framework, based on the mathematical principle of duality, for combining near-optimal solutions with provable lower bounds on the required sample size. This implies that we no longer need to work on heuristics with marginal or no improvement, but can certify the solution quality by establishing a limit on the remaining gap; in many cases, we can even prove optimality of achieved solutions. This theoretical contribution also provides extensive practical improvements: Our algorithm SampLNS was tested on 47 small and medium-sized configurable systems from the existing literature. SampLNS can reliably find samples of smaller size than previous methods in 85% of the cases; moreover, we can achieve and prove optimality of solutions for 63% of all instances. This makes it possible to avoid cumbersome efforts of minimizing samples by researchers as well as practitioners, and substantially save testing resources for most configurable systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06788 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of the lower bound computation with Algorithm 1. An edge in the compatibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of the coverage over the number of configurations. Each plot illustrates how [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Differences of the sample sizes of various sampling algorithms (with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Convergence of lower and upper bound over time for a selection of SampLNS runs. Values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Analogous to Figure 3, but comparing different versions of SampLNS where the initial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Preprocessor-Based Variability in Open-Source and Industrial Software Systems: An Empirical Study.Empirical Software Engineering (EMSE), 21(2):449–482, April 2016

    Claus Hunsen, Bo Zhang, Janet Siegmund, Christian Kästner, Olaf Leßenich, Martin Becker, and Sven Apel. Preprocessor-Based Variability in Open-Source and Industrial Software Systems: An Empirical Study.Empirical Software Engineering (EMSE), 21(2):449–482, April 2016

    2016

  2. [2]

    The shape of feature code: An analysis of twenty C-preprocessor-based systems

    Rodrigo Queiroz, Leonardo Passos, Marco Tulio Valente, Claus Hunsen, Sven Apel, and Krzysztof Czarnecki. The shape of feature code: An analysis of twenty C-preprocessor-based systems. Software and System Modeling (SoSyM), 16(1):77–96, February 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    Evaluating state-of-the-art# sat solvers on industrial config- uration spaces

    Chico Sundermann, Tobias Heß, Michael Nieke, Paul Maximilian Bittner, Jeffrey M Young, Thomas Thüm, and Ina Schaefer. Evaluating state-of-the-art# sat solvers on industrial config- uration spaces. Empirical Software Engineering, 28(2):29, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Bowen, Frank S

    Thomas F. Bowen, Frank S. Dworack, Ching-Hua Chow, Nancy Griffeth, Gary E. Herman, and Yow-Jian Lin. The Feature Interaction Problem in Telecommunications Systems. InProc. Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering for Telecommunication Switching Systems (SETSS), pages 59–62, Washington, DC, USA, July 1989. IEEE

    1989

  5. [5]

    Magill, and Stephan Reiff-Marganiec

    Muffy Calder, Mario Kolberg, Evan H. Magill, and Stephan Reiff-Marganiec. Feature Interaction: A Critical Review and Considered Forecast.Computer Networks, 41(1):115–141, 2003

    2003

  6. [6]

    Feature-Oriented Software Product Lines

    SvenApel, DonBatory, ChristianKästner, andGunterSaake. Feature-Oriented Software Product Lines. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 2013

    2013

  7. [7]

    Variability bugs in highly configurable systems: A qualitative analysis

    Iago Abal, Jean Melo, Stefan Stănciulescu, Claus Brabrand, Márcio Ribeiro, and Andrzej Wą- sowski. Variability bugs in highly configurable systems: A qualitative analysis. Trans. on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 26(3):10:1–10:34, January 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    The PLA Model: On the Combination of Product-Line Analyses

    Alexander von Rhein, Sven Apel, Christian Kästner, Thomas Thüm, and Ina Schaefer. The PLA Model: On the Combination of Product-Line Analyses. InProc. Int’l Workshop on Vari- ability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS), pages 14:1–14:8, New York, NY, USA, January 2013. ACM

    2013

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    McGregor, Yguaratã Cerqueira Cavalcanti, and Eduardo San- tana De Almeida

    Ivan Do Carmo Machado, John D. McGregor, Yguaratã Cerqueira Cavalcanti, and Eduardo San- tana De Almeida. On Strategies for Testing Software Product Lines: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Information and Software Technology (IST), 56(10):1183–1199, 2014. 25

    2014

  2. [10]

    A Classification of Product Sampling for Software Product Lines

    MahsaVarshosaz, MustafaAl-Hajjaji, ThomasThüm, TobiasRunge, MohammadRezaMousavi, and Ina Schaefer. A Classification of Product Sampling for Software Product Lines. InProc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pages 1–13, New York, NY, USA, September

  3. [11]

    Lopez-Herrejon, and Alexander Egyed

    Evelyn Nicole Haslinger, Roberto E. Lopez-Herrejon, and Alexander Egyed. Using Feature Model Knowledge to Speed Up the Generation of Covering Arrays. InProc. Int’l Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS), pages 16:1–16:6, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM

    2013

  4. [12]

    t-wise Coverage by Uniform Sampling

    Jeho Oh, Paul Gazzillo, and Don Batory. t-wise Coverage by Uniform Sampling. InProc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pages 84–87. ACM, September 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Evaluating T-Wise Testing Strategies in a Community-Wide Dataset of Configurable Software Systems.J

    Fischer Ferreira, Gustavo Vale, João Paulo Diniz, and Eduardo Figueiredo. Evaluating T-Wise Testing Strategies in a Community-Wide Dataset of Configurable Software Systems.J. Systems and Software (JSS), 179:110990, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Reducibility among combinatorial problems

    Richard M Karp. Reducibility among combinatorial problems. In Complexity of Computer Computations: Proceedings of a Symposium on the Complexity of Computer Computations, pages 85–103. Springer, 1972

    1972

  7. [15]

    Optimization of combinatorial testing by incremental SAT solving

    Akihisa Yamada, Takashi Kitamura, Cyrille Artho, Eun-Hye Choi, Yutaka Oiwa, and Armin Biere. Optimization of combinatorial testing by incremental SAT solving. In2015 IEEE 8th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST), pages 1–10. IEEE, 2015

  8. [16]

    A Com- parison of 10 Sampling Algorithms for Configurable Systems

    Flávio Medeiros, Christian Kästner, Márcio Ribeiro, Rohit Gheyi, and Sven Apel. A Com- parison of 10 Sampling Algorithms for Configurable Systems. InProc. Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 643–654, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM

    2016

  9. [17]

    Ahmed, Kamal Z

    Bestoun S. Ahmed, Kamal Z. Zamli, Wasif Afzal, and Miroslav Bures. Constrained interaction testing: A systematic literature study.IEEE Access, 5:25706–25730, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Lopez-Herrejon, Stefan Fischer, Rudolf Ramler, and Aalexander Egyed

    Roberto E. Lopez-Herrejon, Stefan Fischer, Rudolf Ramler, and Aalexander Egyed. A First Systematic Mapping Study on Combinatorial Interaction Testing for Software Product Lines. In Proc. Int’l Workshop on Combinatorial Testing (IWCT), pages 1–10, Washington, DC, USA, April 2015. IEEE

    2015

  11. [19]

    On the solution of traveling salesman problems

    David Applegate, Robert Bixby, William Cook, and Vasek Chvátal. On the solution of traveling salesman problems. Documenta Mathematica, page 645–656, 1998

    1998

  12. [20]

    Princeton University Press, 2011

    William J Cook, David L Applegate, Robert E Bixby, and Vašek Chvátal.The traveling salesman problem: a computational study. Princeton University Press, 2011

    2011

  13. [21]

    Tseitin or not tseitin? the impact of CNF transformations on feature-model analyses

    Elias Kuiter, Sebastian Krieter, Chico Sundermann, Thomas Thüm, and Gunter Saake. Tseitin or not tseitin? the impact of CNF transformations on feature-model analyses. InProc. Int’l Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), New York, NY, USA, October 2022. ACM

    2022

  14. [22]

    Abstract Features in Feature Modeling

    Thomas Thüm, Christian Kästner, Sebastian Erdweg, and Norbert Siegmund. Abstract Features in Feature Modeling. In Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pages 191–200, Washington, DC, USA, August 2011. IEEE. 26

    2011

  15. [23]

    Grasp: A search algorithm for propositional satisfiability

    Joao P Marques-Silva and Karem A Sakallah. Grasp: A search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 48(5):506–521, 1999

    1999

  16. [24]

    CaDiCaL, Kissat, Paracooba, Plingeling and Treengeling entering the SAT Competition 2020

    Armin Biere, Katalin Fazekas, Mathias Fleury, and Maximillian Heisinger. CaDiCaL, Kissat, Paracooba, Plingeling and Treengeling entering the SAT Competition 2020. In Tomas Balyo, Nils Froleyks, Marijn Heule, Markus Iser, Matti Järvisalo, and Martin Suda, editors,Proc. of SAT C...

    2020

  17. [25]

    An Algorithm for Generating T-Wise Covering Arrays from Large Feature Models

    Martin Fagereng Johansen, Øystein Haugen, and Franck Fleurey. An Algorithm for Generating T-Wise Covering Arrays from Large Feature Models. InProc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pages 46–55, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM

    2012

  18. [26]

    YASA: Yet Another Sampling Algorithm

    Sebastian Krieter, Thomas Thüm, Sandro Schulze, Gunter Saake, and Thomas Leich. YASA: Yet Another Sampling Algorithm. In Proc. Int’l Working Conf. on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS), New York, NY, USA, February 2020. ACM

    2020

  19. [27]

    Or-tools

    Laurent Perron and Vincent Furnon. Or-tools

  20. [28]

    Lazy clause generation reengineered

    Thibaut Feydy and Peter J Stuckey. Lazy clause generation reengineered. InPrinciples and Practice of Constraint Programming-CP 2009: 15th International Conference, CP 2009 Lisbon, Portugal, September 20-24, 2009 Proceedings 15, pages 352–366. Springer, 2009

    2009

  21. [29]

    Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual, 2023

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC. Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Large neighborhood search.Handbook of metaheuristics, pages 99–127, 2019

    David Pisinger and Stefan Ropke. Large neighborhood search.Handbook of metaheuristics, pages 99–127, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Exploring relaxation induced neighbor- hoods to improve MIP solutions.Mathematical Programming, 102:71–90, 2005

    Emilie Danna, Edward Rothberg, and Claude Le Pape. Exploring relaxation induced neighbor- hoods to improve MIP solutions.Mathematical Programming, 102:71–90, 2005

    2005

  24. [32]

    Incomplete maxsat approaches for combinatorial testing.Journal of Heuristics, 28(4):377–431, 2022

    Carlos Ansótegui, Felip Manyà, Jesus Ojeda, Josep M Salvia, and Eduard Torres. Incomplete maxsat approaches for combinatorial testing.Journal of Heuristics, 28(4):377–431, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Symmetry breaking constraints for value symmetries in constraint satisfaction

    YC Law and JHM Lee. Symmetry breaking constraints for value symmetries in constraint satisfaction. Constraints, 11:221–267, 2006

    2006

  26. [34]

    In- cLing: Efficient Product-line Testing Using Incremental Pairwise Sampling

    Mustafa Al-Hajjaji, Sebastian Krieter, Thomas Thüm, Malte Lochau, and Gunter Saake. In- cLing: Efficient Product-line Testing Using Incremental Pairwise Sampling. InProc. Int’l Conf. on Generative Programming: Concepts & Experiences (GPCE), pages 144–155, New York, NY, USA, Oc...

    2016

  27. [35]

    Properties of Realistic Fea- ture Models Make Combinatorial Testing of Product Lines Feasible

    Martin Fagereng Johansen, Øystein Haugen, and Franck Fleurey. Properties of Realistic Fea- ture Models Make Combinatorial Testing of Product Lines Feasible. InProc. Int’l Conf. on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), pages 638–652. Springer, Berlin, Heidelb...

    2011

  28. [36]

    Mastering Software Variability with FeatureIDE

    Jens Meinicke, Thomas Thüm, Reimar Schröter, Fabian Benduhn, Thomas Leich, and Gunter Saake. Mastering Software Variability with FeatureIDE. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    Product Sampling for Product Lines: The Scalability Challenge

    Tobias Pett, Thomas Thüm, Tobias Runge, Sebastian Krieter, Malte Lochau, and Ina Schaefer. Product Sampling for Product Lines: The Scalability Challenge. In Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pages 78–83, New York, NY, USA, September 2019. ACM. 27

    2019

  30. [38]

    Stability of Product-Line Sampling in Continuous Integration

    Tobias Pett, Sebastian Krieter, Tobias Runge, Thomas Thüm, Malte Lochau, and Ina Schaefer. Stability of Product-Line Sampling in Continuous Integration. InProc. Int’l Working Conf. on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS), New York, NY, USA, February

  31. [39]

    Is there a mismatch between real-world feature models and product-line research? InProc

    Alexander Knüppel, Thomas Thüm, Stephan Mennicke, Jens Meinicke, and Ina Schaefer. Is there a mismatch between real-world feature models and product-line research? InProc. Europ. Software Engineering Conf./Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE), pages 291–302, New York...

    2017

  32. [40]

    Re- verse Engineering Feature Models

    Steven She, Rafael Lotufo, Thorsten Berger, Andrzej Wąsowski, and Krzysztof Czarnecki. Re- verse Engineering Feature Models. InProc. Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 461–470, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM

    2011

  33. [41]

    A Greedy Heuristic for the Set-Covering Problem.Mathematics of Operations Research (MOR), 4(3):233–235, 1979

    Vasek Chvatal. A Greedy Heuristic for the Set-Covering Problem.Mathematics of Operations Research (MOR), 4(3):233–235, 1979

    1979

  34. [42]

    Kacker, D

    Yu Lei, Raghu N. Kacker, D. Richard Kuhn, Vadim Okun, and James Lawrence. IPOG: A General Strategy for T-Way Software Testing. InProc. Int’l Conf. on Engineering of Computer- Based Systems (ECBS), pages 549–556. IEEE, 2007

    2007

  35. [43]

    Effec- tive Product-Line Testing Using Similarity-Based Product Prioritization.Software and System Modeling (SoSyM), 18(1):499–521, February 2019

    Mustafa Al-Hajjaji, Thomas Thüm, Malte Lochau, Jens Meinicke, and Gunter Saake. Effec- tive Product-Line Testing Using Similarity-Based Product Prioritization.Software and System Modeling (SoSyM), 18(1):499–521, February 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Garvin, Myra B

    Brady J. Garvin, Myra B. Cohen, and Matthew B. Dwyer. Evaluating Improvements to a Meta- Heuristic Search for Constrained Interaction Testing.Empirical Software Engineering (EMSE), 16(1):61–102, 2011

    2011

  37. [45]

    MoSo-PoLiTe - Tool Support for Pairwise and Model-Based Software Product Line Testing

    Sebastian Oster, Ivan Zorcic, Florian Markert, and Malte Lochau. MoSo-PoLiTe - Tool Support for Pairwise and Model-Based Software Product Line Testing. InProc. Int’l Workshop on Vari- ability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS), pages 79–82, New York, NY, USA,

  38. [46]

    Bypassing the Combinatorial Explosion: Using Similarity to Generate and Prioritize T-Wise Test Configurations for Software Product Lines.IEEE Trans

    Christopher Henard, Mike Papadakis, Gilles Perrouin, Jacques Klein, Patrick Heymans, and Yves Le Traon. Bypassing the Combinatorial Explosion: Using Similarity to Generate and Prioritize T-Wise Test Configurations for Software Product Lines.IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering ...

    2014

  39. [47]

    Automated and Scalable T-Wise Test Case Generation Strategies for Software Product Lines

    Gilles Perrouin, Sagar Sen, Jacques Klein, Benoit Baudry, and Yves Le Traon. Automated and Scalable T-Wise Test Case Generation Strategies for Software Product Lines. InProc. Int’l Conf. on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST), pages 459–468, Washington, DC, US...

    2010

  40. [48]

    Cohen, and Matthew B

    Jiangfan Shi, Myra B. Cohen, and Matthew B. Dwyer. Integration Testing of Software Product Lines Using Compositional Symbolic Execution. InProc. Int’l Conf. on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE), pages 270–284, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, March 2012. Springer

    2012

  41. [49]

    Cohen, Matthew B

    Myra B. Cohen, Matthew B. Dwyer, and Jiangfan Shi. Constructing Interaction Test Suites for Highly-Configurable Systems in the Presence of Constraints: A Greedy Approach.IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering (TSE), 34(5):633–650, 2008. 28

    2008

  42. [50]

    Automated Incremental Pairwise Testing of Software Product Lines

    Sebastian Oster, Florian Markert, and Philipp Ritter. Automated Incremental Pairwise Testing of Software Product Lines. In Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pages 196–210, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 2010. Springer

    2010

  43. [51]

    Efficient and Effective Testing of Automotive Software Product Lines

    Anastasia Cmyrev and Ralf Reissing. Efficient and Effective Testing of Automotive Software Product Lines. Int’l J. Applied Science and Technology (IJAST), 7(2):53–57, 2014

    2014

  44. [52]

    Evolutionary Search-Based Test Gener- ation for Software Product Line Feature Models

    Faezeh Ensan, Ebrahim Bagheri, and Dragan Gasevic. Evolutionary Search-Based Test Gener- ation for Software Product Line Feature Models. InProc. Int’l Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE), volume 7328, pages 613–628. Springer, 2012

    2012

  45. [53]

    Multi- Objective Test Generation for Software Product Lines

    Christopher Henard, Mike Papadakis, Gilles Perrouin, Jacques Klein, and Yves Le Traon. Multi- Objective Test Generation for Software Product Lines. In Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pages 62–71, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM

    2013

  46. [54]

    Tool Demo: Testing Configurable Systems with FeatureIDE

    Mustafa Al-Hajjaji, Jens Meinicke, Sebastian Krieter, Reimar Schröter, Thomas Thüm, Thomas Leich, and Gunter Saake. Tool Demo: Testing Configurable Systems with FeatureIDE. InProc. Int’l Conf. on Generative Programming: Concepts & Experiences (GPCE), pages 173–177, New York, N...

    2016

  47. [55]

    FeatureIDE: Empowering third-party developers

    Sebastian Krieter, Marcus Pinnecke, Jacob Krüger, Joshua Sprey, Christopher Sontag, Thomas Thüm, Thomas Leich, and Gunter Saake. FeatureIDE: Empowering third-party developers. In Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pages 42–45, New York, NY, USA, Septem...

    2017

  48. [56]

    Test Them All, Is It Worth It? Assessing Configuration Sampling on the JHipster Web Development Stack.Empirical Software Engineering (EMSE), 24(2):674–717, July 2019

    Axel Halin, Alexandre Nuttinck, Mathieu Acher, Xavier Devroey, Gilles Perrouin, and Benoit Baudry. Test Them All, Is It Worth It? Assessing Configuration Sampling on the JHipster Web Development Stack.Empirical Software Engineering (EMSE), 24(2):674–717, July 2019

    2019

  49. [57]

    Generic solution-space sampling for multi-domain product lines

    Marc Hentze, Tobias Pett, Chico Sundermann, Sebastian Krieter, Thomas Thüm, and Ina Schae- fer. Generic solution-space sampling for multi-domain product lines. In Proc. Int’l Conf. on Generative Programming: Concepts & Experiences (GPCE), New York, NY, USA, 2022. ACM. To appear

    2022

  50. [58]

    Practical Pairwise Testing for Software Product Lines

    Dusica Marijan, Arnaud Gotlieb, Sagar Sen, and Aymeric Hervieu. Practical Pairwise Testing for Software Product Lines. InProc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pages 227–235, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM

    2013

  51. [59]

    Building High Strength Mixed Covering Ar- rays with Constraints

    Carlos Ansótegui, Jesús Ojeda, and Eduard Torres. Building High Strength Mixed Covering Ar- rays with Constraints. In Laurent D. Michel, editor,27th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2021), volume 210 ofLeibniz International Pro-...

    2021

  52. [60]

    UnWise: High T-Wise Coverage from Uniform Sampling

    Tobias Heß, Tim Jannik Schmidt, Lukas Ostheimer, Sebastian Krieter, and Thomas Thüm. UnWise: High T-Wise Coverage from Uniform Sampling. InProc. Int’l Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS), VaMoS ’24, pages 37–45, New York, NY, USA, 2024. ACM

    2024

  53. [61]

    Beyond pairwise testing: Advancing 3-wise combinatorial interaction testing for highly configurable sys- tems

    Chuan Luo, Shuangyu Lyu, Qiyuan Zhao, Wei Wu, Hongyu Zhang, and Chunming Hu. Beyond pairwise testing: Advancing 3-wise combinatorial interaction testing for highly configurable sys- tems. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Ana...

    2024

  54. [62]

    Campactor: A novel and effective local search algorithm for optimizing pairwise covering arrays

    Qiyuan Zhao, Chuan Luo, Shaowei Cai, Wei Wu, Jinkun Lin, Hongyu Zhang, and Chunming Hu. Campactor: A novel and effective local search algorithm for optimizing pairwise covering arrays. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium ...

    2023

  55. [63]

    MulTi-WiseSampling: Trading Uniform T-Wise Feature Interaction Coverage for Smaller Samples

    TobiasPett, SebastianKrieter, ThomasThüm, andInaSchaefer. MulTi-WiseSampling: Trading Uniform T-Wise Feature Interaction Coverage for Smaller Samples. InProc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), SPLC ’24, pages 47–53, New York, NY, USA, 2024. ACM

    2024

  56. [64]

    SPL Conqueror: Toward Optimization of Non-functional Properties in Software Product Lines

    Norbert Siegmund, Marko Rosenmüller, Martin Kuhlemann, Christian Kästner, Sven Apel, and Gunter Saake. SPL Conqueror: Toward Optimization of Non-functional Properties in Software Product Lines. Software Quality Journal (SQJ), 20(3-4):487–517, September 2012

    2012

  57. [65]

    Mutation-Based Generation of Soft- ware Product Line Test Configurations

    Christopher Henard, Mike Papadakis, and Yves Le Traon. Mutation-Based Generation of Soft- ware Product Line Test Configurations. In Claire Le Goues and Shin Yoo, editors,Search-Based Software Engineering, volume 8636 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 92–106. Springer ...

    2014

  58. [66]

    Automaticgeneration of search-based algorithms applied to the feature testing of software product lines

    HelsonL.JakubovskiFilho, JacksonA.PradoLima, andSilviaR.Vergilio. Automaticgeneration of search-based algorithms applied to the feature testing of software product lines. InProc. Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES), pages 114–123, New York, NY, USA,

  59. [67]

    Eduard Baranov, Axel Legay, and Kuldeep S. Meel. Baital: An Adaptive Weighted Sampling Ap- proach for Improved t-Wise Coverage. InProc. Europ. Software Engineering Conf./Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE), pages 1114–1126, New York, NY, USA, 2020. ACM

    2020

  60. [68]

    Towards Efficient SPL Testing by Variant Reduction

    Matthias Kowal, Sandro Schulze, and Ina Schaefer. Towards Efficient SPL Testing by Variant Reduction. InProc. Int’l Workshop on Variability and Composition (VariComp), pages 1–6, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM

    2013

  61. [69]

    Generating Better Partial Covering Arrays by Modeling Weights on Sub-Product Lines

    MartinFagerengJohansen, ØysteinHaugen, FranckFleurey, AnneGreteEldegard, andTorbjørn Syversen. 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), pages 269–284. Sp...

    2012

  62. [70]

    T-wise presence condition coverage and sampling for configurable systems

    Sebastian Krieter, Thomas Thüm, Sandro Schulze, Sebastian Ruland, Malte Lochau, Gunter Saake, and Thomas Leich. T-wise presence condition coverage and sampling for configurable systems. Technical Report arXiv:2205.15180, Cornell University Library, May 2022

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    ConfigurationCoverageintheAnalysisofLarge-ScaleSystemSoftware

    Reinhard Tartler, Daniel Lohmann, Christian Dietrich, Christoph Egger, and Julio Sincero. ConfigurationCoverageintheAnalysisofLarge-ScaleSystemSoftware. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 45(3):10–14, January 2012

    2012

  64. [72]

    Multi-Objective Test Suite Op- timization for Incremental Product Family Testing

    Hauke Baller, Sascha Lity, Malte Lochau, and Ina Schaefer. Multi-Objective Test Suite Op- timization for Incremental Product Family Testing. InProc. Int’l Conf. on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST), pages 303–312, Washington, DC, USA, 2014. IEEE

    2014

  65. [73]

    SPLat: Lightweight Dynamic Analysis for Reducing Combina- torics in Testing Configurable Systems

    Chang Hwan Peter Kim, Darko Marinov, Sarfraz Khurshid, Don Batory, Sabrina Souto, Paulo Barros, and Marcelo D’Amorim. SPLat: Lightweight Dynamic Analysis for Reducing Combina- torics in Testing Configurable Systems. InProc. Europ. Software Engineering Conf./Foundations of Soft...

    2013

  66. [74]

    Reducing Combinatorics in Testing Product Lines

    Chang Hwan Peter Kim, Don Batory, and Sarfraz Khurshid. Reducing Combinatorics in Testing Product Lines. In Proc. Int’l Conf. on Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD), pages 57—68, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM

    2011

  67. [75]

    Uniform and Scalable SAT-Sampling for Configurable Systems

    Ruben Heradio, David Fernández-Amorós, José Antonio Galindo, and David Benavides. Uniform and Scalable SAT-Sampling for Configurable Systems. In Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pages 17:1–17:11, New York, NY, USA, October 2020. ACM

    2020

  68. [76]

    Uniform Sampling of SAT Solutions for Configurable Systems: Are We There Yet? InProc

    Quentin Plazar, Mathieu Acher, Gilles Perrouin, Xavier Devroey, and Maxime Cordy. Uniform Sampling of SAT Solutions for Configurable Systems: Are We There Yet? InProc. Int’l Conf. on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST), pages 240–251, Piscataway, NJ, USA,

  69. [77]

    FastSamplingofPerfectly Uniform Satisfying Assignments

    DimitrisAchlioptas, ZaydSHammoudeh, andPanosTheodoropoulos. FastSamplingofPerfectly Uniform Satisfying Assignments. InProc. Int’l Conf. on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT), pages 135–147, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 2018. Springer

    2018

  70. [78]

    Knowledge Compilation Meets Uniform Sampling

    Shubham Sharma, Rahul Gupta, Subhajit Roy, and Kuldeep S Meel. Knowledge Compilation Meets Uniform Sampling. InProc. Int’l Conf. on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning, pages 620–636. EasyChair, 2018

    2018

  71. [79]

    Distance-Based Sampling of Software Configuration Spaces

    Christian Kaltenecker, Alexander Grebhahn, Norbert Siegmund, Jianmei Guo, and Sven Apel. Distance-Based Sampling of Software Configuration Spaces. InProc. Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 1084–1094, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019. IEEE

    2019

  72. [80]

    Fault-Based Product-Line Testing: Effective Sample Generation Based on Feature-Diagram Mutation

    Dennis Reuling, Johannes Bürdek, Serge Rotärmel, Malte Lochau, and Udo Kelter. Fault-Based Product-Line Testing: Effective Sample Generation Based on Feature-Diagram Mutation. In Proc. Int’l Systems and Software Product Line Conf. (SPLC), pages 131–140, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM

    2015

  73. [81]

    Generating Tests for Detecting Faults in Feature Models

    Paolo Arcaini, Angelo Gargantini, and Paolo Vavassori. Generating Tests for Detecting Faults in Feature Models. InProc. Int’l Conf. on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST), pages 1–10. IEEE, April 2015

    2015

  74. [82]

    Towards Incremental Test Suite Optimization for Software Product Lines

    Hauke Baller and Malte Lochau. Towards Incremental Test Suite Optimization for Software Product Lines. In Proc. Int’l Workshop on Feature-Oriented Software Development (FOSD), pages 30–36, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM

    2014

  75. [83]

    Optimizing product orders using graph algorithms for improving incremental product-line analysis

    Sascha Lity, Mustafa Al-Hajjaji, Thomas Thüm, and Ina Schaefer. Optimizing product orders using graph algorithms for improving incremental product-line analysis. InProc. Int’l Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS), pages 60–67, New York, NY, U...

    2017

  76. [84]

    Delta-oriented product prioritization for similarity-based product-line testing

    Mustafa Al-Hajjaji, Sascha Lity, Remo Lachmann, Thomas Thüm, Ina Schaefer, and Gunter Saake. Delta-oriented product prioritization for similarity-based product-line testing. InProc. Int’l Workshop on Variability and Complexity in Software Design (VACE), pages 34–40, Piscat- aw...

    2017

  77. [85]

    Regression Testing Minimization, Selection and Prioritization: A Survey

    Shin Yoo and Mark Harman. Regression Testing Minimization, Selection and Prioritization: A Survey. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability (STVR), 22(2):67–120, 2012. 31

    2012

  78. [86]

    Applying Incremental Model Slicing to Product-Line Regression Testing

    Sascha Lity, Thomas Morbach, Thomas Thüm, and Ina Schaefer. Applying Incremental Model Slicing to Product-Line Regression Testing. In Proc. Int’l Conf. on Software Reuse (ICSR), pages 3–19, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, June 2016. Springer

    2016

  79. [87]

    Retest Test Selection for Product- Line Regression Testing of Variants and Versions of Variants.J

    Sascha Lity, Manuel Nieke, Thomas Thüm, and Ina Schaefer. Retest Test Selection for Product- Line Regression Testing of Variants and Versions of Variants.J. Systems and Software (JSS), 147:46–63, January 2019

    2019

  80. [88]

    Complete Shadow Symbolic Execution with Java PathFinder

    Yannic Noller, Hoang Lam Nguyen, Minxing Tang, Timo Kehrer, and Lars Grunske. Complete Shadow Symbolic Execution with Java PathFinder. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 44(4):15–16, September 2021

    2021

  81. [89]

    Beyond Testing Configurable Sys- tems: Applying Variational Execution to Automatic Program Repair and Higher Order Muta- tion Testing

    Chu-Pan Wong, Jens Meinicke, and Christian Kästner. Beyond Testing Configurable Sys- tems: Applying Variational Execution to Automatic Program Repair and Higher Order Muta- tion Testing. InProc. Europ. Software Engineering Conf./Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE), ...

    2018

  82. [90]

    Faster Variational Exe- cution With Transparent Bytecode Transformation

    Chu-Pan Wong, Jens Meinicke, Lukas Lazarek, and Christian Kästner. Faster Variational Exe- cution With Transparent Bytecode Transformation. 2(OOPSLA), October 2018

    2018

  83. [91]

    A Classification and Survey of Analysis Strategies for Software Product Lines.ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 47(1):6:1–6:45, June 2014

    Thomas Thüm, Sven Apel, Christian Kästner, Ina Schaefer, and Gunter Saake. A Classification and Survey of Analysis Strategies for Software Product Lines.ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 47(1):6:1–6:45, June 2014

    2014

  84. [92]

    Toward Variability-Aware Testing

    Christian Kästner, Alexander von Rhein, Sebastian Erdweg, Jonas Pusch, Sven Apel, Tillmann Rendel, and Klaus Ostermann. Toward Variability-Aware Testing. InProc. Int’l Workshop on Feature-Oriented Software Development (FOSD), pages 1–8, New York, NY, USA, September

  85. [93]

    On Essential Configuration Complexity: Measuring Interactions In Highly-Configurable Systems

    Jens Meinicke, Chu-Pan Wong, Christian Kästner, Thomas Thüm, and Gunter Saake. On Essential Configuration Complexity: Measuring Interactions In Highly-Configurable Systems. In Proc. Int’l Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pages 483–494, New York, NY, USA, Septembe...

    2016

  86. [94]

    Cohen, Siddhartha R

    David M. Cohen, Siddhartha R. Dalal, Michael L. Fredman, and Gardner C. Patton. The AETG System: An Approach to Testing Based on Combinatiorial Design.IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering (TSE), 23(7):437–444, 1997

    1997

  87. [95]

    Software and Hardware Testing Using Combinatorial Covering Suites

    Alan Hartman. Software and Hardware Testing Using Combinatorial Covering Suites. In Mar- tin Charles Golumbic and Irith Ben-Arroyo Hartman, editors,Graph theory, combinatorics and algorithms: Interdisciplinary applications, volume 34, pages 237–266. Springer, 2006

    2006

  88. [96]

    Structures and Lower Bounds for Binary Covering Arrays.Discrete Mathematics, 312(19):2958–2968, 2012

    Soohak Choi, Hyun Kwang Kim, and Dong Yeol Oh. Structures and Lower Bounds for Binary Covering Arrays.Discrete Mathematics, 312(19):2958–2968, 2012

    2012

  89. [97]

    Kleitman and Joel Spencer

    Daniel J. Kleitman and Joel Spencer. Families of K-Independent Sets.Discrete Mathematics, 6(3):255–262, 1973

    1973

  90. [98]

    G. O. H. Katona. Two Applications (For Search Theory and Truth Functions) of Sperner Type Theorems. Periodica Mathematica Hungarica, 3(1):19–26, 1973

    1973

  91. [99]

    A Survey of Constrained Combinatorial Testing.CoRR, abs/1908.02480, 2019

    Huayao Wu, Changhai Nie, Justyna Petke, Yue Jia, and Mark Harman. A Survey of Constrained Combinatorial Testing.CoRR, abs/1908.02480, 2019. 32

    1908 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.