Change-Driven Consistency for Component Code, Architectural Models, and Contracts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the development of component-based software systems, it is often impractical or even impossible to include all development information into the source code. Instead, specialized languages are used to describe components and systems on different levels of abstraction or from different viewpoints: Component-based architecture models and contracts, for example, can be used to describe the system on a high level of abstraction, and to formally specify component constraints. Because models, contracts, and code contain redundant information, inconsistencies can occur if they are modified independently. Keeping this information consistent manually can require considerable effort, and can lead to costly errors, for example, when security-relevant components are verified against inconsistent contracts. In this paper, we present an approach for keeping component-based architecture models and contracts specified in the Java Modeling Language (JML) consistent with Java source code. We use change-driven incremental transformations and the \vitruvius framework to automate the consistency preservation where this is possible. Using two case studies, we demonstrate how to detect and propagate changes and refactoring operations to keep models and contracts consistent with the source code.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it