BHive: Towards Behaviour-Driven Development Supported by B-Method
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
Behaviour-Driven Development (BDD) is an "outside-in" approach to software development built upon semi-formal mediums for specifying the behaviour of a system as it would be observed externally. Through the representation of a system as a collection of user stories and scenarios using BDD's notation, practitioners automate acceptance tests using examples of desired behaviour for the envisioned system. A formal model created in concert with BDD tests would provide valuable insight into test validity and enhance the visibility of the problem domain. This work called BHive builds upon the formal underpinnings of BDD scenarios by mapping their "Given," "When," and "Then" statements to "Precondition," "Command," and "Postcondition" constructs as introduced by Floyd-Hoare logic. We posit that this mapping allows for a B-Method representation to be created and that such a model is useful for exploring system behaviour and exposing gaps in requirements. We also outline extensions to BDD tooling required for the described integration and present benefits of the BHive approach to integrating formalism within a BDD project.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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