Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2307.04599

Bridging MDE and AI: A Systematic Review of Domain-Specific Languages and Model-Driven Practices in AI Software Systems Engineering

Simon Raedler·Luca Berardinelli·Karolin Winter·Abbas Rahimi·Stefanie Rinderle-Ma
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Background:Technical systems are growing in complexity with more components and functions across various disciplines. Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) helps manage this complexity by using models as key artifacts. Domain-Specific Languages (DSL) supported by MDE facilitate modeling. As data generation in product development increases, there's a growing demand for AI algorithms, which can be challenging to implement. Integrating AI algorithms with DSL and MDE can streamline this process. Objective:This study aims to investigate the existing model-driven approaches relying on DSL in support of the engineering of AI software systems to sharpen future research further and define the current state of the art. Method:We conducted a Systemic Literature Review (SLR), collecting papers from five major databases resulting in 1335 candidate studies, eventually retaining 18 primary studies. Each primary study will be evaluated and discussed with respect to the adoption of MDE principles and practices and the phases of AI development support aligned with the stages of the CRISP-DM methodology. Results:The study's findings show that language workbenches are of paramount importance in dealing with all aspects of modeling language development and are leveraged to define DSL explicitly addressing AI concerns. The most prominent AI-related concerns are training and modeling of the AI algorithm, while minor emphasis is given to the time-consuming preparation of the data. Early project phases that support interdisciplinary communication of requirements, e.g., CRISP-DM Business Understanding phase, are rarely reflected. Conclusion:The study found that the use of MDE for AI is still in its early stages, and there is no single tool or method that is widely used. Additionally, current approaches tend to focus on specific stages of development rather than providing support for the entire development process.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Simon Raedler, Luca Berardinelli, Karolin Winter, Abbas Rahimi, Stefanie Rinderle-Ma. 2024-05-06. Bridging MDE and AI: A Systematic Review of Domain-Specific Languages and Model-Driven Practices in AI Software Systems Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-024-01211-y

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗