Code Swarm: A Code Generation Tool based on the Automatic Derivation of Transformation Rule Set
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatic generation of software code from system design models remains an actively explored research area for the past several years. A number of tools are currently available to facilitate and automate the task of generating code from software models. To the best of our knowledge, existing software tools rely on an explicitly defined transformation rule set to perform the model-to-code transformation process. In this paper, we introduce a novel tool named Code Swarm, abbreviated as CodS, that automatically generates implementation code from system design models by utilizing a swarm-based approach. Specifically, CodS is capable of generating Java code from the class and state models of the software system by making use of the previously solved model-to-code transformation examples. Our tool enables the designers to specify behavioural actions in the input models using the Action Specification Language (ASL). We use an industrial case study of the Elevator Control System (ECS) to perform the experimental validation of our tool. Our results indicate that the code generated by CodS is correct and consistent with the input design models. CodS performs the process of automatic code generation without taking the explicit transformation rule set or languages metamodels’ information as input, which distinguishes it from all the existing automatic code generation tools.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".