Deriving Component Interfaces after a Restructuring of a Legacy System
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
Although there are contributions on component-oriented languages, components are mostly implemented using object-oriented (OO) languages. In this perspective, a component corresponds to a set of classes that work together to provide one or more services. Services are grouped together in interfaces that are each implemented by a class. Thus, dependencies between components are defined using the semantic of the enclosed classes, which is mostly structural. This makes it difficult to understand an architecture described with such links. Indeed, at an architectural level dependencies between components must represent functional aspects. This problem is worse, when the components are obtained by re-engineering of legacy OO systems. Indeed, in this case the obtained components are mainly based on the consistency of the grouping logic. So, in this paper we propose an approach to identify the interfaces of a component according to its interactions with the other components. To this end, we use formal concept analysis. The evaluation of the proposed approach via an empirical study showed that the identified interfaces overall correspond to the different functional aspects of the components.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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