A Metric-Based Heuristic Framework to Detect Object-Oriented Design Flaws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the important activities in re-engineering process is detecting design flaws. Such design flaws prevent an efficient maintenance, and further development of a system. This research proposes a novel metric-based heuristic framework to detect and locate object-oriented design flaws from the source code. It is accomplished by evaluating design quality of an object-oriented system through quantifying deviations from good design heuristics and principles. While design flaws can occur at any level, the proposed approach assesses the design quality of internal and external structure of a system at the class level which is the most fundamental level of a system. In a nutshell, design flaws are detected and located systematically in two phases using a generic OO design knowledge-base. In the first phase, hotspots are detected by primitive classifiers via measuring metrics indicating a design feature (e.g. complexity). In the second phase, individual design flaws will be detected by composite classifiers using a proper set of metrics. We have chosen JBoss Application Server as the case study, due to its pure OO large size structure, and its success as an open source J2EE platform among developers.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".