Towards Checking Consistency-Breaking Updates between Models and Generated Artifacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Model-based Low-Code systems rely on high-level specifications (models) to generate all artifacts of the resulting software. Such artifacts can be code, schemas, as well as data, and metadata. Maintaining consistency between models and artifacts generated from them is at the core of generative approaches in software engineering. Existing approaches have focused on the consistency problem between specific pairs of artifacts, such as models and their metamodels, class diagrams and generated code, and database schemas and data. Instead, we envision a holistic approach for maintaining the consistency that encompasses all generated artifacts. In this paper, we motivate our approach with a case study from a real model-driven software system. We identify scenarios where updates to either models or generated artifacts break consistency and outline a set of challenges and future research directions.
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 | 0.057 | 0.333 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".