skip to main content
10.1145/2642937.2642960acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Constructing adaptive configuration dialogs using crowd data

Published:15 September 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

As modern software systems grow in size and complexity so do their configuration possibilities. Users are easy to be confused and overwhelmed by the amount of choices they need to make in order to fit their systems to their exact needs. We propose a method to construct adaptive configuration elicitation dialogs through utilizing crowd wisdom. A set of configuration preferences in the form of association rules is first mined from a crowd configuration data set. Possible configuration elicitation dialogs are then modeled through a Markov Decision Process (MDP). Association rules are used to inform the model about configuration decisions that can be automatically inferred from knowledge already elicited earlier in the dialog. This way, an MDP solver can search for elicitation strategies which maximize the expected amount of automated decisions, reducing thereby elicitation effort and increasing user confidence of the result. The method is applied to the privacy configuration of Facebook.

References

  1. R. Agrawal, T. ImieliŃski, and A. Swami. Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. In Proceedings of the 1993 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD'93), 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. X. Amatriain, A. Jaimes, N. Oliver, and J. M. Pujol. Data mining methods for recommender systems. In Recommender Systems Handbook, pages 39--71. Springer, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. C. Boutilier, T. Dean, and S. Hanks. Decision-theoretic planning: Structural assumptions and computational leverage. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. C. Boutilier, R. Patrascu, P. Poupart, and D. Schuurmans. Constraint-based optimization and utility elicitation using the minimax decision criterion. Artificial Intelligence, 170(8--9):686--713, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S. Chen and M. Erwig. Optimizing the product derivation process. In Proc. of the 15th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'11), pages 35--44, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D. Dhungana, P. Grünbacher, and R. Rabiser. DecisionKing: A exible and extensible tool for integrated variability modeling. In Proc. of the 1st International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VAMoS'07), pages 119--128, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. J. Hipp, U. Güntzer, and G. Nakhaeizadeh. Algorithms for association rule mining|a general survey and comparison. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 2(1):58--64, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. B. Hui, S. Liaskos, and J. Mylopoulos. Requirements analysis for customizable software: a goals-skills-preferences framework. In Proc. of the 11th IEEE Requirements Engineering Conference, pages 117--126, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. M. Janota, G. Botterweck, and J. Marques-Silva. On lazy and eager interactive reconfiguration. In Proc. of the 8th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS'14), pages 81--88, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. N. Kushman and D. Katabi. Enabling configuration-independent automation by non-expert users. In Proc. of the 9th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 2010), pages 223--236, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. S. Liaskos, S. M. Khan, M. Litoiu, M. D. Jungblut, V. Rogozhkin, and J. Mylopoulos. Behavioral adaptation of information systems through goal models. Information Systems, 37(8):767--783, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S. Liaskos, A. Lapouchnian, Y. Wang, Y. Yu, and S. Easterbrook. Configuring common personal software: a requirements-driven approach. In Proc. of the 13th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'05), pages 9--18, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. Liaskos, S. A. McIlraith, S. Sohrabi, and J. Mylopoulos. Representing and reasoning about preferences in requirements engineering. Requirements Engineering, 16(3):227--249, Sept. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. W. E. Mackay. Triggers and barriers to customizing software. In Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'91), pages 153--160, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Mylopoulos, L. Chung, S. Liao, H. Wang, and E. Yu. Exploring alternatives during requirements analysis. IEEE Software, 18(1):92--96, Jan 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. A. Nohrer and A. Egyed. Optimizing user guidance during decision-making. In Proc. of the 15th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'11), pages 25--34, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. J. Sandvig, B. Mobasher, and R. Burke. Robustness of collaborative recommendation based on association rule mining. In Proc. of the 2007 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys'07), pages 105--112, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. K. Schmid, R. Rabiser, and P. Grünbacher. A comparison of decision modeling approaches in product lines. In Proc. of the 5th Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS'11), pages 119--126, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. M. Stolze and M. Ströbel. Utility-based decision tree optimization: A framework for adaptive interviewing. In User Modeling 2001, volume LNCS 2109, pages 105--116. 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. H. J. Wang, J. C. Platt, Y. Chen, R. Zhang, and Y.-M. Wang. Automatic misconfiguration troubleshooting with PeerPressure. In Proc. of the 6th Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation (OSDI 2004), pages 245--258, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. J. White, B. Dougherty, D. C. Schmidt, and D. Benavides. Automated reasoning for multi-step feature model configuration problems. In Proc. of the 13th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC '09), pages 11--20, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Constructing adaptive configuration dialogs using crowd data

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

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

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            ASE '14: Proceedings of the 29th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering
            September 2014
            934 pages
            ISBN:9781450330138
            DOI:10.1145/2642937

            Copyright © 2014 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 15 September 2014

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            ASE '14 Paper Acceptance Rate82of337submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate82of337submissions,24%

            Upcoming Conference

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader