A Focus+Context Approach to Alleviate Cognitive Challenges of Editing and Debugging UML Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Model-Driven Engineering has been proposed to increase the productivity of developing a software system. Despite its benefits, it has not been fully adopted in the software industry. Research has shown that modelling tools are amongst the top barriers for the adoption of MDE by industry. Recently, researchers have conducted empirical studies to identify the most-severe cognitive difficulties of modellers when using UML model editors. Their analyses show that users' prominent challenges are in remembering the contextual information when performing a particular modelling task; and locating, understanding, and fixing errors in the models. To alleviate these difficulties, we propose two Focus+Context user interfaces that provide enhanced cognitive support and automation in the user's interaction with a model editor. Moreover, we conducted two empirical studies to assess the effectiveness of our interfaces on human users. Our results reveal that our interfaces help users 1) improve their ability to successfully fulfil their tasks, 2) avoid unnecessary switches among diagrams, 3) produce more error-free models, 4) remember contextual information, and 5) reduce time on tasks.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".