Supporting architecture evaluation for ATAM scenarios with LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.00150v1
• Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 18:42:12 GMT
• Title: Supporting architecture evaluation for ATAM scenarios with LLMs
• Abstract summary: This work studies MS Copilot as an LLM tool to analyze quality scenarios suggested by students in a software architecture course.<n>Our initial study reveals that the LLM produces in most cases better and more accurate results regarding the risks, sensitivity points and tradeoff analysis of the quality scenarios.
• Score: 0.6136099525128398
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Architecture evaluation methods have long been used to evaluate software designs. Several evaluation methods have been proposed and used to analyze tradeoffs between different quality attributes. Having competing qualities leads to conflicts for selecting which quality-attribute scenarios are the most suitable ones that an architecture should tackle and for prioritizing the scenarios required by the stakeholders. In this context, architecture evaluation is carried out manually, often involving long brainstorming sessions to decide which are the most adequate quality scenarios. To reduce this effort and make the assessment and selection of scenarios more efficient, we suggest the usage of LLMs to partially automate evaluation activities. As a first step to validate this hypothesis, this work studies MS Copilot as an LLM tool to analyze quality scenarios suggested by students in a software architecture course and compares the students' results with the assessment provided by the LLM. Our initial study reveals that the LLM produces in most cases better and more accurate results regarding the risks, sensitivity points and tradeoff analysis of the quality scenarios. Overall, the use of generative AI has the potential to partially automate and support the architecture evaluation tasks, improving the human decision-making process.

Related papers

• Towards Supporting Quality Architecture Evaluation with LLM Tools [0.48563015521171976]
  This paper investigates MS Copilot as an LLM tool to analyze quality-attribute scenarios suggested by students and reviewed by experienced architects.<n>Our initial findings reveal that the LLM produces in most cases better and more accurate results regarding risks, sensitivity points and tradeoff analysis of the quality scenarios generated manually, as well as it significantly reduces the effort required for the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-30T18:44:24Z)
• Using LLMs to Evaluate Architecture Documents: Results from a Digital Marketplace Environment [0.0]
  We investigate how an LLM-supported evaluation of architecture documents can support software architects to improve such artefacts.<n>We used different LLMs to analyze the quality of architecture documents and compared the results with evaluations from software architects.<n>While using LLMs in this architecture task is promising, our results showed inconsistencies that need further analyses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T15:11:01Z)
• Large Language Models in Thematic Analysis: Prompt Engineering, Evaluation, and Guidelines for Qualitative Software Engineering Research [5.0043780915457114]
  Large language models (LLMs) are entering qualitative research, yet no reproducible methods exist for integrating them into established approaches like thematic analysis (TA)<n>We designed and iteratively refined prompts for Phases 2-5 of Braun and Clarke's reflexive TA.<n>We conducted blind evaluations with four expert evaluators who applied rubrics derived from Braun and Clarke's quality criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-21T09:29:18Z)
• Expert Preference-based Evaluation of Automated Related Work Generation [54.29459509574242]
  We propose GREP, a multi-turn evaluation framework that integrates classical related work evaluation criteria with expert-specific preferences.<n>For better accessibility, we design two variants of GREP: a more precise variant with proprietary LLMs as evaluators, and a cheaper alternative with open-weight LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T13:08:07Z)
• LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustness [58.334290876531036]
  We argue that current safety alignment research efforts for large language models are hindered by many intertwined sources of noise.<n>We propose a set of guidelines for reducing noise and bias in evaluations of future attack and defense papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T12:55:07Z)
• PanguIR Technical Report for NTCIR-18 AEOLLM Task [12.061652026366591]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly critical and challenging to evaluate.<n>Manual evaluation, while comprehensive, is often costly and resource-intensive.<n>automatic evaluation offers greater scalability but is constrained by the limitations of its evaluation criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T07:40:02Z)
• Learning to Align Multi-Faceted Evaluation: A Unified and Robust Framework [61.38174427966444]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being used more and more extensively for automated evaluation in various scenarios.<n>Previous studies have attempted to fine-tune open-source LLMs to replicate the evaluation explanations and judgments of powerful proprietary models.<n>We propose a novel evaluation framework, ARJudge, that adaptively formulates evaluation criteria and synthesizes both text-based and code-driven analyses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T06:31:45Z)
• SedarEval: Automated Evaluation using Self-Adaptive Rubrics [4.97150240417381]
  We propose a new evaluation paradigm based on self-adaptive rubrics.<n>SedarEval consists of 1,000 meticulously crafted questions, each with its own self-adaptive rubric.<n>We train a specialized evaluator language model (evaluator LM) to supplant human graders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-26T16:45:09Z)
• CARMO: Dynamic Criteria Generation for Context-Aware Reward Modelling [27.86204841898399]
  Reward modeling in large language models is susceptible to reward hacking.<n>We propose Context-Aware Reward Modeling (CARMO) to mitigate this problem.<n>We establish a new state-of-the-art performance in zero-shot settings for generative models, achieving a 2.1% improvement on Reward Bench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T21:18:49Z)
• An Automatic and Cost-Efficient Peer-Review Framework for Language Generation Evaluation [29.81362106367831]
  Existing evaluation methods often suffer from high costs, limited test formats, the need of human references, and systematic evaluation biases. In contrast to previous studies that rely on human annotations, Auto-PRE selects evaluators automatically based on their inherent traits. Experimental results indicate our Auto-PRE achieves state-of-the-art performance at a lower cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T06:06:06Z)
• Adversarial Multi-Agent Evaluation of Large Language Models through Iterative Debates [0.0]
  We propose a framework that interprets large language models (LLMs) as advocates within an ensemble of interacting agents. This approach offers a more dynamic and comprehensive evaluation process compared to traditional human-based assessments or automated metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T00:22:07Z)
• LLaVA-Critic: Learning to Evaluate Multimodal Models [110.06665155812162]
  We introduce LLaVA-Critic, the first open-source large multimodal model (LMM) designed as a generalist evaluator.<n>LLaVA-Critic is trained using a high-quality critic instruction-following dataset that incorporates diverse evaluation criteria and scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:36:33Z)
• RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation [55.26340302485898]
  RepEval is a metric that leverages the projection of Large Language Models (LLMs) representations for evaluation. Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T13:50:55Z)
• Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning Beyond Accuracy [50.09931172314218]
  We introduce ReasonEval, a new methodology for evaluating the quality of reasoning steps.<n>We show that ReasonEval consistently outperforms baseline methods in the meta-evaluation datasets.<n>We observe that ReasonEval can play a significant role in data selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T17:18:04Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• LLM-Eval: Unified Multi-Dimensional Automatic Evaluation for Open-Domain Conversations with Large Language Models [28.441725610692714]
  We propose a unified multi-dimensional automatic evaluation method for open-domain conversations with large language models (LLMs) We design a single prompt-based evaluation method that leverages a unified evaluation schema to cover multiple dimensions of conversation quality in a single model call. We extensively evaluate the performance of LLM-Eval on various benchmark datasets, demonstrating its effectiveness, efficiency, and adaptability compared to state-of-the-art evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T05:57:09Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.