LLM-based Automated Architecture View Generation: Where Are We Now?
Authors: Miryala Sathvika, Rudra Dhar, Karthik Vaidhyanathan
AI-generated Key Points
- Creation of architecture views is crucial for software architecture documentation
- Manual process can be labor-intensive and often results in outdated artifacts
- Automated generation of views from source code becomes increasingly valuable as systems become more complex
- Empirical evaluation of Language Model (LLMs) and agentic approaches in generating architecture views from source code
- Generated 4,137 high-quality architecture views from 340 open-source repositories using three LLMs with three prompting techniques and two agentic approaches
- Prompting strategies offered marginal improvements while a custom agentic approach consistently outperformed a general-purpose agent
- LLMs and agentic approaches exhibited granularity mismatches by operating at the code level rather than architectural abstractions
- Human expertise in architectural design processes is still needed, positioning LLMs and agentic approaches as assistive tools rather than autonomous architects
- Challenges encountered informed experimental design and implemented solutions such as retry mechanism for incorrect PlantUML code and hierarchical summarization approach to manage context window constraints
- Addressing source code summarization is critical bottleneck in accurately generating high-level architectural views from source code
Abstract: Architecture views are essential for software architecture documentation, yet their manual creation is labor intensive and often leads to outdated artifacts. As systems grow in complexity, the automated generation of views from source code becomes increasingly valuable. Goal: We empirically evaluate the ability of LLMs and agentic approaches to generate architecture views from source code. Method: We analyze 340 open-source repositories across 13 experimental configurations using 3 LLMs with 3 prompting techniques and 2 agentic approaches, yielding 4,137 generated views. We evaluate the generated views by comparing them with the ground-truth using a combination of automated metrics complemented by human evaluations. Results: Prompting strategies offer marginal improvements. Few-shot prompting reduces clarity failures by 9.2% compared to zero-shot baselines. The custom agentic approach consistently outperforms the general-purpose agent, achieving the best clarity (22.6% failure rate) and level-of-detail success (50%). Conclusions: LLM and agentic approaches demonstrate capabilities in generating syntactically valid architecture views. However, they consistently exhibit granularity mismatches, operating at the code level rather than architectural abstractions. This suggests that there is still a need for human expertise, positioning LLMs and agents as assistive tools rather than autonomous architects.
Tools for this paper
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
We compare the title and abstract with papers indexed in our database. For arXiv papers, we search within the same category; for DOI and other sources, we search across sources and subjects. You can rerun the search as our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.