MORE: A multi‐objective refactoring recommendation approach to introducing design patterns and fixing code smells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Refactoring is widely recognized as a crucial technique applied when evolving object‐oriented software systems. If applied well, refactoring can improve different aspects of software quality including readability, maintainability, and extendibility. However, despite its importance and benefits, recent studies report that automated refactoring tools are underused much of the time by software developers. This paper introduces an automated approach for refactoring recommendation, called MORE, driven by 3 objectives: (1) to improve design quality (as defined by software quality metrics), (2) to fix code smells, and (3) to introduce design patterns. To this end, we adopt the recent nondominated sorting genetic algorithm, NSGA‐III, to find the best trade‐off between these 3 objectives. We evaluated the efficacy of our approach using a benchmark of 7 medium and large open‐source systems, 7 commonly occurring code smells (god class, feature envy, data class, spaghetti code, shotgun surgery, lazy class, and long parameter list), and 4 common design pattern types (visitor, factory method, singleton, and strategy). Our approach is empirically evaluated through a quantitative and qualitative study to compare it against 3 different state‐of‐the art approaches, 2 popular multiobjective search algorithms, and random search. The statistical analysis of the results confirms the efficacy of our approach in improving the quality of the studied systems while successfully fixing 84% of code smells and introducing an average of 6 design patterns. In addition, the qualitative evaluation shows that most of the suggested refactorings (an average of 69%) are considered by developers to be relevant and meaningful.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".