Comparing Commit Messages and Source Code Metrics for the Prediction Refactoring Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how developers refactor their code is critical to support the design improvement process of software. This paper investigates to what extent code metrics are good indicators for predicting refactoring activity in the source code. In order to perform this, we formulated the prediction of refactoring operation types as a multi-class classification problem. Our solution relies on measuring metrics extracted from committed code changes in order to extract the corresponding features (i.e., metric variations) that better represent each class (i.e., refactoring type) in order to automatically predict, for a given commit, the method-level type of refactoring being applied, namely Move Method, Rename Method, Extract Method, Inline Method, Pull-up Method, and Push-down Method. We compared various classifiers, in terms of their prediction performance, using a dataset of 5004 commits and extracted 800 Java projects. Our main findings show that the random forest model trained with code metrics resulted in the best average accuracy of 75%. However, we detected a variation in the results per class, which means that some refactoring types are harder to detect than others.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".