Solving the Class Responsibility Assignment Problem in Object-Oriented Analysis with Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of object-oriented analysis and design (OOAD), class responsibility assignment is not an easy skill to acquire. Though there are many methodologies for assigning responsibilities to classes, they all rely on human judgment and decision making. Our objective is to provide decision-making support to reassign methods and attributes to classes in a class diagram. Our solution is based on a multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) and uses class coupling and cohesion measurement for defining fitness functions. Our MOGA takes as input a class diagram to be optimized and suggests possible improvements to it. The choice of a MOGA stems from the fact that there are typically many evaluation criteria that cannot be easily combined into one objective, and several alternative solutions are acceptable for a given OO domain model. Using a carefully selected case study, this paper investigates the application of our proposed MOGA to the class responsibility assignment problem, in the context of object-oriented analysis and domain class models. Our results suggest that the MOGA can help correct suboptimal class responsibility assignment decisions and perform far better than simpler alternative heuristics such as hill climbing and a single-objective GA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".