Impact analysis and change management of UML models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of Unified Modeling Language (UML) analysis/design models on large projects leads to a large number of interdependent UML diagrams. As software systems evolve, those diagrams undergo changes to, for instance, correct errors or address changes in the requirements. Those changes can in turn lead to subsequent changes to other elements in the UML diagrams. Impact analysis is then defined as the process of identifying the potential consequences (side-effects) of a change, and estimating what needs to be modified to accomplish a change. In this article, we propose a UML model-based approach to impact analysis that can be applied before any implementation of the changes, thus allowing an early decision-making and change planning process. We first verify that the UML diagrams are consistent (consistency check). Then changes between two different versions of a UML model are identified according to a change taxonomy, and model elements that are directly or indirectly impacted by those changes (i.e., may undergo changes) are determined using formally defined impact analysis rules (written with Object Constraint Language). A measure of distance between a changed element and potentially impacted elements is also proposed to prioritize the results of impact analysis according to their likelihood of occurrence. We also present a prototype tool that provides automated support for our impact analysis strategy, that we then apply on a case study to validate both the implementation and methodology.
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 | 0.017 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".