Refactoring Debt: Myth or Reality? An Exploratory Study on the Relationship Between Technical Debt and Refactoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the dataset that accompanies the study: "<strong>Refactoring Debt: Myth or Reality? An Exploratory Study on the Relationship Between Technical Debt and Refactoring</strong>." This study has been accepted for publication at the 2022 Mining Software Repositories Conference. <strong><em>Following is the abstract of the study:</em></strong> To meet project timelines or budget constraints, developers intentionally deviate from writing optimal code to feasible code in what is known as incurring \textit{Technical Debt} (TD). Furthermore, as part of planning their correction, developers document these deficiencies as comments in the code (i.e., self-admitted technical debt or SATD). As a means of improving source code quality, developers often apply a series of refactoring operations to their codebase. In this study, we explore developers repaying this debt through refactoring operations by examining occurrences of SATD removal in the code of 76 open-source Java systems. Our findings show that TD payment usually occurs with refactoring activities and developers refactor their code to remove TD for specific reasons. We envision our findings supporting vendors in providing tools to better support developers in the automatic repayment of technical debt.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".