Bad smell detection using quality metrics and refactoring opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bad smells are bad practices in developing software. These poor solutions significantly influence the understandability and maintainability of source code. Therefore, bad smell detection plays a vital role in the refactoring, maintaining, and measuring the quality of large and complex software systems. Researchers believe that bad smells should be precisely identified and addressed. However, bad smell detection is complicated by issues such as informal and inconsistent specifications of bad smells and high false positive rates in the detection process, all of which affect the success rate in detection. In this paper, we present a new method to detect bad smells in code by addressing the aforementioned issues. Our proposed method is a multi‐step process using software quality metrics and refactoring opportunities. In this method, after obtaining the bad smell formal specifications based on software metrics, we utilize them to achieve a set of candidates for each bad smell. Afterwards, each of the instances will be examined and compared with the corresponding refactoring situations specified for that bad smell. This examination strikes out the false positives created in the previous step. The evaluation of this method on four open‐source systems demonstrates the improved effectiveness of bad smell detection in code.
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 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".