An analogy-based approach for predicting design stability of Java classes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting stability in object-oriented (OO) software, i.e., the ease with which a software item evolves while preserving its design, is a key feature for software maintenance. In fact, a well designed OO software must be able to evolve without violating the compatibility among versions, provided that no major requirement reshuffling occurs. Stability, like most quality factors, is a complex phenomenon and its prediction is a real challenge. We present an approach, which relies on the case-based reasoning (CBR) paradigm and thus overcomes the handicap of insufficient theoretical knowledge on stability. The approach explores structural similarities between classes, expressed as software metrics, to guess their chances of becoming unstable. In addition, our stability model binds its value to the impact of changing requirements, i.e., the degree of class responsibilities increase between versions, quantified as the stress factor. As a result, the prediction mechanism favours the stability values for classes having strong structural analogies with a given test class as well as a similar stress impact. Our predictive model is applied on a testbed made up of the classes from four major version of the Java API.
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 | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".