MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090908516 · doi:10.1145/2430536.2430539

Facilitating the transition from use case models to analysis models

2013· article· en· W2090908516 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersPearl TherapeuticsFonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg
KeywordsUse Case DiagramComputer scienceAmbiguitySet (abstract data type)Unified Modeling LanguageSequence diagramClass diagramClass (philosophy)Quality (philosophy)Data miningNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Use case modeling, including use case diagrams and use case specifications (UCSs), is commonly applied to structure and document requirements. UCSs are usually structured but unrestricted textual documents complying with a certain use case template. However, because Use Case Models (UCMods) remain essentially textual, ambiguity is inevitably introduced. In this article, we propose a use case modeling approach, called Restricted Use Case Modeling (RUCM), which is composed of a set of well-defined restriction rules and a modified use case template. The goal is two-fold: (1) restrict the way users can document UCSs in order to reduce ambiguity and (2) facilitate the manual derivation of initial analysis models which, when using the Unified Modeling Language (UML), are typically composed of class diagrams, sequence diagrams, and possibly other types of diagrams. Though the proposed restriction rules and template are based on a clear rationale, two main questions need to be investigated. First, do users find them too restrictive or impractical in certain situations? In other words, can users express the same requirements with RUCM as with unrestricted use cases? Second, do the rules and template have a positive, significant impact on the quality of the constructed analysis models? To investigate these questions, we performed and report on two controlled experiments, which evaluate the restriction rules and use case template in terms of (1) whether they are easy to apply while developing UCMods and facilitate the understanding of UCSs, and (2) whether they help users manually derive higher quality analysis models than what can be generated when they are not used, in terms of correctness, completeness, and redundancy. This article reports on the first controlled experiments that evaluate the applicability of restriction rules on use case modeling and their impact on the quality of analysis models. The measures we have defined to characterize restriction rules and the quality of analysis class and sequence diagrams can be reused to perform similar experiments in the future, either with RUCM or other approaches. Results show that the restriction rules are overall easy to apply and that RUCM results into significant improvements over traditional approaches (i.e., with standard templates, without restrictions) in terms of class correctness and class diagram completeness, message correctness and sequence diagram completeness, and understandability of UCSs.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.159 · 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