Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Generative AI for Software Architecture. Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.13310 v2 pith:KDC7EMS3 submitted 2025-03-17 cs.SE cs.AIcs.DCcs.ET

classification cs.SEcs.AIcs.DCcs.ET
keywords genaisoftwarechallengesadoptionarchitectureappliedarchitecturalarchitecture-specific
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Context: Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is transforming much of software development, yet its application in software architecture is still in its infancy, and no prior study has systematically addressed the topic. Aim: We aim to systematically synthesize the use, rationale, contexts, usability, and future challenges of GenAI in software architecture. Method: We performed a multivocal literature review (MLR), analyzing peer-reviewed and gray literature, identifying current practices, models, adoption contexts, and reported challenges, extracting themes via open coding. Results: Our review identified significant adoption of GenAI for architectural decision support and architectural reconstruction. OpenAI GPT models are predominantly applied, and there is consistent use of techniques such as few-shot prompting and retrieved-augmented generation (RAG). GenAI has been applied mostly to initial stages of the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC), such as Requirements-to-Architecture and Architecture-to-Code. Monolithic and microservice architectures were the dominant targets. However, rigorous testing of GenAI outputs was typically missing from the studies. Among the most frequent challenges are model precision, hallucinations, ethical aspects, privacy issues, lack of architecture-specific datasets, and the absence of sound evaluation frameworks. Conclusions: GenAI shows significant potential in software design, but several challenges remain on its path to greater adoption. Research efforts should target designing general evaluation methodologies, handling ethics and precision, increasing transparency and explainability, and promoting architecture-specific datasets and benchmarks to bridge the gap between theoretical possibilities and practical use.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. What Were You Thinking? An LLM-Driven Large-Scale Study of Refactoring Motivations in Open-Source Projects

    cs.SE 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM-generated refactoring motivations agree with expert raters about 80% of the time, align with literature motivations in roughly half of cases, and correlate only weakly with software metrics.

  2. Emerging Trends in Software Architecture from the Practitioners Perspective: A Five Year Review

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A five-year analysis of practitioner conference talks shows a few cloud-native technologies, led by Kubernetes, dominate industry discourse, while planning and coding phases receive far less attention than deployment ...

  3. MAAD: Automate Software Architecture Design through Knowledge-Driven Multi-Agent Collaboration

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A multi-agent LLM framework generates software architecture designs and evaluation reports from requirements, claimed to outperform MetaGPT on architectural completeness.

  4. Autonomic Microservice Management via Agentic AI and MAPE-K Integration

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A conceptual framework integrating MAPE-K with agentic AI for autonomous microservice anomaly management, including a proposed autonomic threshold for human oversight, offered without empirical validation.

Pith tools