Empirical Studies on the Functional Complexity of Software in Large-Scale Software Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional complexity is one of the most fundamental properties of software because almost all other software attributes and properties such as functional size, development effort, costs, quality, and project duration are highly dependent on it. The functional complexity of software is a macro-scope problem concerning the semantic properties of software and human cognitive complexity towards a given software system; while the computational complexity is a micro-scope problem concerning algorithmic analyses towards machine throughput and time/space efficiency. This paper presents an empirical study on the functional complexity of software known as cognitive complexity based on large-scale samples using a Software Cognitive Complexity Analysis Tool (SCCAT). Empirical data are obtained with SCCAT on 7,531 programs and five formally specified software systems. The theoretical foundation of software functional complexity is introduced and the metric of software cognitive complexity is formally modeled. The functional complexities of a large-scale software system and the air traffic control systems (ATCS) are rigorously analyzed. A novel approach to represent software functional complexities and their distributions in software systems is developed. The nature of functional complexity of software in software engineering is rigorously explained. The relationship between the symbolic and functional complexities of software is quantitatively analyzed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".