Identification of behavioural and creational design motifs through dynamic analysis
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
Abstract Design patterns offer design motifs, solutions to object‐oriented design problems. Design motifs lead to well‐structured designs and thus are believed to ease software maintenance. However, after use, they are often ‘lost’ and are consequently of little help during program comprehension and other maintenance activities. Therefore, several works proposed design pattern identification approaches to recover occurrences of the motifs. These approaches mainly used the structure and organization of classes as input. Consequently, they have a low precision when considering behavioural and creational motifs, which pertain to the assignment of responsibilities and the collaborations among objects at runtime. We propose MoDeC, an approach to describe behavioural and creational motifs as collaborations among objects in the form of scenario diagrams. We identify these motifs using dynamic analysis and constraint programming. Using a proof‐of‐concept implementation of MoDeC and different scenarios for five other Java programs and Builder , Command , and Visitor , we show that MoDeC has a better precision than the state‐of‐the‐art static approaches. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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