Deferring design pattern decisions and automating structural pattern changes using a design-pattern-based programming system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the design phase of software development, the designer must make many fundamental design decisions concerning the architecture of the system. Incorrect decisions are relatively easy and inexpensive to fix if caught during the design process, but the difficulty and cost rise significantly if problems are not found until after coding begins. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to find incorrect design decisions during the design phase. To reduce the cost of expensive corrections, it would be useful to have the ability to defer some design decisions as long as possible, even into the coding stage. Failing that, tool support for automating design changes would give more freedom to revisit and change these decisions when needed. This article shows how a design-pattern-based programming system based on generative design patterns can support the deferral of design decisions where possible, and automate changes where necessary. A generative design pattern is a parameterized pattern form that is capable of generating code for different versions of the underlying design pattern. We demonstrate these ideas in the context of a parallel application written with the CO 2 P 3 S pattern-based parallel programming system. We show that CO 2 P 3 S can defer the choice of execution architecture (shared-memory or distributed-memory), and can automate several changes to the application structure that would normally be daunting to tackle late in the development cycle. Although we have done this work with a pattern-based parallel programming system, it can be generalized to other domains.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".