Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2605.28989

Generalized Software Product Line Extraction

Federico Bruzzone·Walter Cazzola·Luca Favalli
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Software product line (SPL) engineering has been successfully applied to software development by obtaining software systems as compositions of modular features. Existing approaches to SPL engineering, however, are typically bound to a specific technological space (such as, a programming language and a composer) and integrated development environment (IDE), and rely on extraction mechanisms that make strong assumptions on the underlying technological space. This tight coupling hinders reuse, evolution, and adoption of heterogeneous development environments. We propose a general, workbench-agnostic protocol for extracting feature models from existing software artifacts and for configuring and deriving software products. The protocol follows a bottom-up approach based on lightweight dependency units called "atoms", and organizes the extraction and configuration process around an SPL server (workbench-independent) and an SPL client with a workbench-specific backend and a generic frontend. The protocol makes few assumptions on the underlying software artifacts and is therefore applicable to varied SPLs. The applicability of this approach is presented through a prototypical implementation of the architecture in which several subsystems interact and can be swapped freely without affecting the others. In particular, we focus on the application of such a protocol in the context of language product lines (LPLs), demonstrating its applicability to concrete scenarios while preserving workbench-agnosticism. From bottom to top, the implementation comprises: Neverlang language artifacts, a Java SPL client backend, an agnostic and reusable SPL server written in Go and Prolog, and a JavaScript SPL client frontend.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.PL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Federico Bruzzone, Walter Cazzola, Luca Favalli. 2026-05-27. Generalized Software Product Line Extraction. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28989

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗