Automated Traceability for Domain Modelling Decisions Empowered by Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Domain modelling abstracts real-world entities and their relationships in the form of class diagrams for a given domain problem space. Modellers often perform domain modelling to reduce the gap between understanding the problem description which expresses requirements in natural language and the concise interpretation of these requirements. However, the manual practice of domain modelling is both time-consuming and error-prone. These issues are further aggravated when problem descriptions are long, which makes it hard to trace modelling decisions from domain models to problem descriptions or vice-versa leading to completeness and conciseness issues. Automated support for tracing domain modelling decisions in both directions is thus advantageous. In this paper, we propose an automated approach that uses artificial intelligence techniques to extract domain models along with their trace links. We present a traceability information model to enable traceability of modelling decisions in both directions and provide its proof-of-concept in the form of a tool. The evaluation on a set of unseen problem descriptions shows that our approach is promising with an overall median F2 score of 82.04%. We conduct an exploratory user study to assess the benefits and limitations of our approach and present the lessons learned from this study.
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 | 0.012 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".