Connectivity of co-changed method groups: a case study on open source systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software maintenance is an important and challenging phase of the software development life cycle because changes during this phase without proper awareness of dependencies among program modules can introduce faults in the software system. There is also a common intuition that cloned code introduces additional software maintenance challenges and difficulties. To support successful accomplishment of maintenance activities we consider two issues: (i) identifying coding characteristics that cause high source code modifications, and (ii) guidance for minimizing source code modifications. Focusing on these two issues we investigated the effects of method sharing (among different functionality) on method co-changeability and source code modifications. We proposed and empirically evaluated two metrics, (i) COMS (Co-changeability of Methods), and (ii) CCMS (Connectivity of Co-changed Method Groups). COMS measures the extent to which a method co-changes with other methods. CCMS quantifies the extent to which a particular functionality in a software system is connected with other functionality in that system. In other words CCMS measures the intensity of method sharing among different functionality or tasks (defined later). We investigated the impact of CCMS on COMS and source code modifications. Our comprehensive study on hundreds of revisions of six open source subject systems covering three programming languages (Java, C and C#) suggests that - (i) higher CCMS causes higher COMS as well as increased source code modifications, (ii) COMS in the cloned regions of a software system is negligible as compared to the COMS in the non-cloned regions, and (iii) in-spite of some issues (described later) cloning can be a possible way to reduce CCMS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it