DACOS—A Manually Annotated Dataset of Code Smells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers apply machine-learning techniques for code smell detection to counter the subjectivity of many code smells. Such approaches need a large, manually annotated dataset for training and benchmarking. Existing literature offers a few datasets; however, they are small in size and, more importantly, do not focus on the subjective code snippets. In this paper, we present DACOS, a manually annotated dataset containing 10, 267 annotations for 5, 192 code snippets. The dataset targets three kinds of code smells at different granularity–multifaceted abstraction, complex method, and long parameter list. The dataset is created in two phases. The first phase helps us identify the code snippets that are potentially subjective by determining the thresholds of metrics used to detect a smell. The second phase collects annotations for potentially subjective snippets. We also offer an extended dataset DACOSX that includes definitely benign and definitely smelly snippets by using the thresholds identified in the first phase. We have developed TAGMAN, a web application to help annotators view and mark the snippets one-by-one and record the provided annotations. We make the datasets and the web application accessible publicly. This dataset will help researchers working on smell detection techniques to build relevant and context-aware machine-learning models.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".