Reading Beside the Lines: Indentation as a Proxy for Complexity Metric
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maintainers face the daunting task of wading through a collection of both new and old revisions, trying to ferret out revisions which warrant personal inspection. One can rank revisions by size/lines of code (LOC), but often, due to the distribution of the size of changes, revisions will be of similar size. If we can't rank revisions by LOC perhaps we can rank by Halstead's and McCabe's complexity metrics? However, these metrics are problematic when applied to code fragments (revisions) written in multiple languages: special parsers are required which may not support the language or dialect used; analysis tools may not understand code fragments. We propose using the statistical moments of indentation as a lightweight, language independent, revision/diff friendly metric which actually proxies classical complexity metrics. We have extensively evaluated our approach against the entire CVS histories of the 278 of the most popular and most active SourceForge projects. We found that our results are linearly correlated and rank-correlated with traditional measures of complexity, suggesting that measuring indentation is a cheap and accurate proxy for code complexity of revisions. Thus ranking revisions by the standard deviation and summation of indentation will be very similar to ranking revisions by complexity.
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 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".