MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1572112458 · doi:10.1109/apsec.2004.13

A Systematic Study of UML Class Diagram Constituents for their Abstract and Precise Recovery

2005· article· en· W1572112458 on OpenAlexaff
Yann‐Gaël Guéhéneuc

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass diagramComputer scienceProgramming languageApplications of UMLUML toolJavaReverse engineeringUnified Modeling LanguageSuiteClass (philosophy)Communication diagramSoftware engineeringSource codeSoftwareArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing reverse-engineering tools use algorithms based on vague and verbose definitions of UML constituents to recover class diagrams from source code. Thus, reverse-engineered class diagrams are neither abstract nor precise representations of source code and are of little interest for software engineers. We propose an exhaustive study of class diagram constituents with respect to their recovery from C++, Java, and Smalltalk source code. We exemplify our study with a tool suite, PTIDEJ, to reverse-engineer Java programs as UML class diagrams abstractly and precisely. The tool suite produces class diagrams that help software engineers in better understanding programs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207