Model refactoring by example: A multi‐objective search based software engineering approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Declarative rules are frequently used in model refactoring in order to detect refactoring opportunities and to apply the appropriate ones. However, a large number of rules is required to obtain a complete specification of refactoring opportunities. Companies usually have accumulated examples of refactorings from past maintenance experiences. Based on these observations, we consider the model refactoring problem as a multi objective problem by suggesting refactoring sequences that aim to maximize both structural and textual similarity between a given model (the model to be refactored) and a set of poorly designed models in the base of examples (models that have undergone some refactorings) and minimize the structural similarity between a given model and a set of well‐designed models in the base of examples (models that do not need any refactoring). To this end, we use the Non‐dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA‐II) to find a set of representative Pareto optimal solutions that present the best trade‐off between structural and textual similarities of models. The validation results, based on 8 real world models taken from open‐source projects, confirm the effectiveness of our approach, yielding refactoring recommendations with an average correctness of over 80%. In addition, our approach outperforms 5 of the state‐of‐the‐art refactoring approaches.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".