Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a Federated Learning Code Smell Detection (FedCSD) approach that allows organizations to collaboratively train federated ML models while preserving their data privacy. These assertions have been supported by three experiments that have significantly leveraged three manually validated datasets aimed at detecting and examining different code smell scenarios. In experiment 1, which was concerned with a centralized training experiment, dataset two achieved the lowest accuracy (92.30%) with fewer smells, while datasets one and three achieved the highest accuracy with a slight difference (98.90% and 99.5%, respectively). This was followed by experiment 2, which was concerned with cross-evaluation, where each ML model was trained using one dataset, which was then evaluated over the other two datasets. Results from this experiment show a significant drop in the model's accuracy (lowest accuracy: 63.80\%) where fewer smells exist in the training dataset, which has a noticeable reflection (technical debt) on the model's performance. Finally, the last and third experiments evaluate our approach by splitting the dataset into 10 companies. The ML model was trained on the company's site, then all model-updated weights were transferred to the server. Ultimately, an accuracy of 98.34% was achieved by the global model that has been trained using 10 companies for 100 training rounds. The results reveal a slight difference in the global model's accuracy compared to the highest accuracy of the centralized model, which can be ignored in favour of the global model's comprehensive knowledge, lower training cost, preservation of data privacy, and avoidance of the technical debt problem.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.512 | 0.325 |
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".