A systematic literature review on the detection of smells and their evolution in object‐oriented and service‐oriented systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This systematic literature review paper investigates the key techniques employed to identify smells in different paradigms of software engineering from object‐oriented (OO) to service‐oriented (SO). In this review, we want to identify commonalities and differences in the identification of smells in OO and SO systems. Our research method relies on an automatic search from the relevant digital libraries to find the studies published since January 2000 on smells until December 2017. We have conducted a pilot and author‐based search that allows us to select the 78 most relevant studies after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. We evaluated the studies based on the smell detection techniques and the evolution of different methodologies in OO and SO. Among the 78 relevant studies selected, we have identified six different studies in which linguistic source code analysis received less attention from the researchers as compared to the static source code analysis. Smells like the yo‐yo problem, unnamed coupling, intensive coupling, and interface bloat received considerably less attention in the literature. We also identified a catalog of 30 smells infrequently reported for SO systems and that require further attention. Moreover, a suite of 20 smells reported for SO systems can also be detected using static source code metrics in OO. Finally, our review highlighted three major research trends that are further subdivided into 20 research patterns initiating the detection of smells toward their correction.
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 | 0.012 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".