Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study evaluates the capability of OpenAI's LLM to synthesize microservice architectures from textual requirements, addressing a significant gap in the transition from monolithic to microservice systems. By employing zero-shot and few-shot prompting techniques, the research demonstrates that the LLM can achieve a higher F1 score in service identification and communication recovery under few-shot prompting conditions. The findings indicate that architectures generated with few-shot prompting are perceived as more modular and coherent by experts, highlighting the model's potential in early design stages of software development.
Few-shot prompting boosts LLM performance in generating microservice architectures, achieving an impressive F1 score of 0.97 for service identification.
Microservice architectures have become dominant for modernizing monolithic systems, yet identifying appropriate services remains challenging and largely manual. Existing decomposition approaches are predominantly code-centric, limiting applicability in early design stages where only textual requirements are available. Despite advances in Large Language Models (LLMs), limited empirical evidence exists on their ability to synthesize complete microservice architectures from natural-language requirements, including service definitions and inter-service interactions. This study investigates whether an LLM can bridge requirements engineering and architectural design, generating architectures solely from textual requirements and evaluating structural agreement and perceived quality of results. We conduct a mixed-method study using OpenAI o3 under zero-shot (ZS) and few-shot (FS) prompting across two systems (Bookstore, PetClinic), one execution per system/condition. Architectures are evaluated through (i) comparison with reference architectures using precision, recall, and F1-score for service identification and communication recovery, and (ii) a blinded expert assessment of correctness, completeness, modularity, and plausibility, plus open feedback synthesis. OpenAI o3 identifies services with higher agreement under FS prompting (F1 = 0.79 for ZS versus = 0.97 for FS). Communication recovery is more challenging: ZS produces dense architectures with high recall but low precision (F1 = 0.61), while FS improves agreement, reaching F1 = 0.82 and reducing unsupported dependencies. Expert evaluation corroborates these results, with FS architectures perceived as more modular, coherent, and plausible than ZS outputs. OpenAI o3 shows potential for requirements-driven synthesis when guided by exemplar prompting. Results are model- and context-specific from two small systems, not model-independent proof.
