Related papers: Consistency-based Merging of Variability Models

Consistency-based Merging of Variability Models

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.07643v1
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 16:28:42 GMT
Title: Consistency-based Merging of Variability Models
Authors: Mathias Uta and Alexander Felfernig and Gottfried Schenner and Johannes Spoecklberger
Abstract summary: We introduce an approach to variability model integration that is based on the concepts of contextual modeling and conflict detection. We present the underlying concepts and the results of a corresponding performance analysis.
Score: 62.997667081978825
License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Abstract: Globally operating enterprises selling large and complex products and services often have to deal with situations where variability models are locally developed to take into account the requirements of local markets. For example, cars sold on the U.S. market are represented by variability models in some or many aspects different from European ones. In order to support global variability management processes, variability models and the underlying knowledge bases often need to be integrated. This is a challenging task since an integrated knowledge base should not produce results which are different from those produced by the individual knowledge bases. In this paper, we introduce an approach to variability model integration that is based on the concepts of contextual modeling and conflict detection. We present the underlying concepts and the results of a corresponding performance analysis.

Related papers

HEMM: Holistic Evaluation of Multimodal Foundation Models [91.60364024897653]
Multimodal foundation models can holistically process text alongside images, video, audio, and other sensory modalities. It is challenging to characterize and study progress in multimodal foundation models, given the range of possible modeling decisions, tasks, and domains.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-03T18:00:48Z)
Towards Understanding Variants of Invariant Risk Minimization through the Lens of Calibration [0.6906005491572401]
We show that Information Bottleneck-based IRM achieves consistent calibration across different environments. Our empirical evidence indicates that models exhibiting consistent calibration across environments are also well-calibrated.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-31T02:08:43Z)
Model Families for Multi-Criteria Decision Support: A COVID-19 Case Study [0.0]
We aim to reevaluate the idea of the model family, dating back to the 1990s. We use it to promote this as a mindset in the creation of decision support frameworks in large research projects.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-22T08:51:48Z)
Foundation Models for Decision Making: Problems, Methods, and Opportunities [124.79381732197649]
Foundation models pretrained on diverse data at scale have demonstrated extraordinary capabilities in a wide range of vision and language tasks. New paradigms are emerging for training foundation models to interact with other agents and perform long-term reasoning. Research at the intersection of foundation models and decision making holds tremendous promise for creating powerful new systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-07T18:44:07Z)
On the Interventional Kullback-Leibler Divergence [11.57430292133273]
We introduce the Interventional Kullback-Leibler divergence to quantify both structural and distributional differences between causal models. We propose a sufficient condition on the intervention targets to identify subsets of observed variables on which the models provably agree or disagree.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-10T17:03:29Z)
Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)
MultiViz: An Analysis Benchmark for Visualizing and Understanding Multimodal Models [103.9987158554515]
MultiViz is a method for analyzing the behavior of multimodal models by scaffolding the problem of interpretability into 4 stages. We show that the complementary stages in MultiViz together enable users to simulate model predictions, assign interpretable concepts to features, perform error analysis on model misclassifications, and use insights from error analysis to debug models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-06-30T18:42:06Z)
On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models [256.61956234436553]
We call these models foundation models to underscore their critically central yet incomplete character. This report provides a thorough account of the opportunities and risks of foundation models. To tackle these questions, we believe much of the critical research on foundation models will require deep interdisciplinary collaboration.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-08-16T17:50:08Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.