Selecting optimal software code descriptors—The case of Java
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last 25 years, a considerable proliferation of software metrics and a plethora of tools have emerged to extract them. While this is indeed positive concerning the previous situations of limited data, it still leads to a significant problem arising both from a theoretical and a practical standpoint. From a theoretical perspective, several metrics are likely to result in collinearity, overfitting, etc. From a practical perspective, such a set of metrics is difficult to manage and companies, especially small ones, may feel overwhelmed and unable to select a viable subset of them. Still, so far it has not been fully understood what is a viable subset of metrics suitable to properly manage software projects and products. In this paper, we attempt to address this issue. We focus on the case of programs written in Java and we consider classes and methods. We use Sammon error as a measure of the similarity of metrics. Utilizing both Particle Swarm Optimization and Genetic Algorithm, we adapted a method for the identification of a viable subset of such metrics that could solve the mentioned problem. Furthermore, we experiment with our approach on 800 projects coming from GitHub and validate the results on 200 projects. With the proposed method we got optimal subsets of software engineering metrics. These subsets gave us low values of Sammon error at more than 70% at class and method levels on a validation dataset.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".