An analogy-based approach for predicting design stability of Java classes
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
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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