MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411488587 · doi:10.1145/3744920

On the Utility of Domain Modeling Assistance with Large Language Models

2025· article· en· W4411488587 on OpenAlexaff
Meriem Ben Chaaben, Loli Burgueño, István Dávid, Houari Sahraoui

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceModeling languageDomain (mathematical analysis)UsabilitySoftware engineeringDomain analysisAbstractionDomain-specific languageProcess (computing)Model-driven architectureContext (archaeology)Subject-matter expertDomain modelSoftwareDomain engineeringHuman–computer interactionSoftware developmentData scienceArtificial intelligenceDomain knowledgeProgramming languageComponent-based software engineeringSoftware construction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) simplifies software development through abstraction, yet challenges such as time constraints, incomplete domain understanding, and adherence to syntactic constraints hinder the design process. This article presents a study to evaluate the usefulness of a novel approach utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) and few-shot prompt learning to assist in domain modeling. The aim of this approach is to overcome the need for extensive training of traditional AI-based completion algorithms on domain-specific datasets and to offer versatile support for various modeling activities, providing valuable recommendations to software modelers. To support this approach, we developed MAGDA, a user-friendly tool, through which we conduct a user study and assess the real-world applicability of our approach in the context of domain modeling, offering valuable insights into its usability and effectiveness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and MethodologySame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207