MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118084379 · doi:10.1109/re.2005.61

Reverse engineering goal models from legacy code

2005· article· en· W2118084379 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCode refactoringComputer scienceReverse engineeringProgramming languageSoftware engineeringTraceabilitySource codeKPI-driven code analysisJavaLegacy systemLegacy codeAbstract syntax treeAbstract syntaxSoftware maintenanceStatic program analysisSoftware systemSoftwareSoftware developmentSemantics (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A reverse engineering process aims at reconstructing high-level abstractions from source code. This paper presents a novel reverse engineering methodology for recovering stakeholder goal models from both structured and unstructured legacy code. The methodology consists of the following major steps: 1) Refactoring source code by extracting methods based on comments; 2) Converting the refactored code into an abstract structured program through statechart refactoring and hammock graph construction; 3) Extracting a goal model from the structured program's abstract syntax tree; 4) Identifying nonfunctional requirements and derive soft goals based on the traceability between the code and the goal model. To illustrate this requirements recovery process, we refactor stakeholder goal models from two legacy software code bases: an unstructured Web-based email in PHP (SquirrelMail) and a structured email client system in Java (Columba).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.225 · 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