Multi-Criteria Code Refactoring Using Search-Based Software Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most widely used techniques to improve the quality of existing software systems is refactoring—the process of improving the design of existing code by changing its internal structure without altering its external behavior. While it is important to suggest refactorings that improve the quality and structure of the system, many other criteria are also important to consider, such as reducing the number of code changes, preserving the semantics of the software design and not only its behavior, and maintaining consistency with the previously applied refactorings. In this article, we propose a multi-objective search-based approach for automating the recommendation of refactorings. The process aims at finding the optimal sequence of refactorings that (i) improves the quality by minimizing the number of design defects, (ii) minimizes code changes required to fix those defects, (iii) preserves design semantics, and (iv) maximizes the consistency with the previously code changes. We evaluated the efficiency of our approach using a benchmark of six open-source systems, 11 different types of refactorings (move method, move field, pull up method, pull up field, push down method, push down field, inline class, move class, extract class, extract method, and extract interface) and six commonly occurring design defect types (blob, spaghetti code, functional decomposition, data class, shotgun surgery, and feature envy) through an empirical study conducted with experts. In addition, we performed an industrial validation of our technique, with 10 software engineers, on a large project provided by our industrial partner. We found that the proposed refactorings succeed in preserving the design coherence of the code, with an acceptable level of code change score while reusing knowledge from recorded refactorings applied in the past to similar contexts.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".