Playing with refactoring: Identifying extract class opportunities through game theory
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
In software engineering, developers must often find solutions to problems balancing competing goals, e.g., quality versus cost, time to market versus resources, or cohesion versus coupling. Finding a suitable balance between contrasting goals is often complex and recommendation systems are useful to support developers and managers in performing such a complex task. We believe that contrasting goals can be often dealt with game theory techniques. Indeed, game theory is successfully used in other fields, especially in economics, to mathematically propose solutions to strategic situation, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others. To demonstrate the applicability of game theory to software engineering and to understand its pros and cons, we propose an approach based on game theory that recommend extract-class refactoring opportunities. A preliminary evaluation inspired by mutation testing demonstrates the applicability and the benefits of the proposed approach.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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