How Do Developers Solve Software-engineering Tasks on Model-based Code Generators? An Empirical Study Design.
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
Model-based code-generators are complex in nature; they are built using a variety of tools such as language workbenches, and model-to-model and model-to-text transformation languages. Due to the highly heterogeneous technology ecosystem in which code generators are built, understanding and maintaining their architecture pose numerous cognitive challenges to both novice and expert developers. Most of these challenges are associated with tasks that require to trace and pinpoint generation artifacts given a life-cycle requirement. We argue that such tasks can be classified in three general categories: (a) information discovery, (b) information summarization, and (c) information filtering and isolation. Furthermore, we hypothesize that visualizations that enable the interactive exploration of model-to-model and model-to-text transformation compositions can significantly improve developers’ performance when reflecting on a code-generation architecture, and its corresponding execution mechanics. In this paper we describe an empirical study conceived (a) to understand the performance of developers (in terms of time and precision) when asked to discover, filter, and summarize information about a model-based code generator, using classic integrated development environments and editors, and (b) to measure and compare the developers’ effectiveness on the same tasks using state-of-the-art traceability visualizations for model-transformation compositions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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