Matching Antipatterns to Improve the Quality of Use Case Models
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
Use case modeling is an effective technique used to capture functional requirements. Use case models are mainly composed of textual descriptions written in natural language and simple diagrams that adhere to a few syntactic rules. This simplicity can be deceptive as many modelers create use case models that are incorrect, inconsistent, and ambiguous and contain restrictive design decisions. In this paper, a new methodology is described that utilizes antipatterns to detect potentially defective areas in use case models. This paper introduces the tool ARBIUM, which will support the proposed technique and aid analysts to improve the quality of their models. ARBIUM presents a framework that will allow developers to define their own antipatterns using OCL and textual descriptions. The proposed approach and tool are applied to a distributed biodiversity database use case model to demonstrate its feasibility. Our results indicate that they can improve the overall clarity and precision of use case models
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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