From a domain analysis to the specification and detection of code and design smells
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
Abstract Code and design smells are recurring design problems in software systems that must be identified to avoid their possible negative consequences on development and maintenance. Consequently, several smell detection approaches and tools have been proposed in the literature. However, so far, they allow the detection of predefined smells but the detection of new smells or smells adapted to the context of the analysed systems is possible only by implementing new detection algorithms manually. Moreover, previous approaches do not explain the transition from specifications of smells to their detection. Finally, the validation of the existing approaches and tools has been limited on few proprietary systems and on a reduced number of smells. In this paper, we introduce an approach to automate the generation of detection algorithms from specifications written using a domain-specific language. This language is defined from a thorough domain analysis. It allows the specification of smells using high-level domain-related abstractions. It allows the adaptation of the specifications of smells to the context of the analysed systems. We specify 10 smells, generate automatically their detection algorithms using templates, and validate the algorithms in terms of precision and recall on Xerces v2.7.0 and GanttProject v1.10.2, two open-source object-oriented systems. We also compare the detection results with those of a previous approach, iPlasma .
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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