ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025
Informed decision-making in prioritising product variants.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Feature models (FMs) play a crucial role in software product lines (SPLs) by representing variability and enabling the generation of diverse product configurations. However, the vast number of possible configurations often makes it challenging to identify the most suitable variant, especially when multiple criteria must be considered. Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, such as analytic hierarchy process (AHP), technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), and VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje ("multicriteria optimization and compromise solution") (VIKOR), are effective for ranking configurations based on user-defined preferences. However, the application of disparate MCDM techniques to the same feature model with identical criteria can yield conflicting rankings, thereby complicating the decision-making process. To address this issue, we propose a novel framework that systematically integrates multiple MCDM methods to prioritise product configurations and provides informed decision support to reconcile ranking discrepancies. The framework automates the prioritisation process and offers a structured approach to explain differences between rankings, enhancing transparency and user confidence in the final selection. The framework's effectiveness has been validated through real-world case studies, demonstrating its ability to streamline configuration prioritisation and support consistent, preference-driven decision-making in complex SPL environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.