A Bayesian Approach for the 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
The presence of code and design smells can have a severe impact on the quality of a program. Consequently, their detection and correction have drawn the attention of both researchers and practitioners who have proposed various approaches to detect code and design smells in programs. However, none of these approaches handle the inherent uncertainty of the detection process. We propose a Bayesian approach to manage this uncertainty. First, we present a systematic process to convert existing state-of-the-art detection rules into a probabilistic model. We illustrate this process by generating a model to detect occurrences of the Blob antipattern. Second, we present results of the validation of the model: we built this model on two open-source programs, GanttProject v1.10.2 and Xerces v2.7.0, and measured its accuracy. Third, we compare our model with another approach to show that it returns the same candidate classes while ordering them to minimise the quality analysts' effort. Finally, we show that when past detection results are available, our model can be calibrated using machine learning techniques to offer an improved, context-specific detection.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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