Broken Windows: Exploring the Applicability of a Controversial Theory on Code Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is the quality of existing code correlated with the quality of subsequent changes? According to the (controversial) broken windows theory, which inspired this study, disorder sets descriptive norms and signals behavior that further increases it. From a large code corpus, we examine whether code history does indeed affect the evolution of code quality. We examine C code quality metrics and Java code smells in specific files, and see whether subsequent commits by developers continue on that path. We check whether developers tailor the quality of their commits based on the quality of the file they commit to. Our results show that history matters, that developers behave differently depending on some aspects of the code quality they encounter, and that programming style inconsistency is not necessarily related to structural qualities. These findings have implications for both software practice and research. Software practitioners can emphasize current quality practices as these influence the code that will be developed in the future. Researchers in the field may replicate and extend the study to improve our understanding of the theory and its practical implications on artifacts, processes, and people.
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 | 0.038 | 0.302 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".