Detecting Refactoring Commits in Machine Learning Python Projects: A Machine Learning-Based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Refactoring aims to improve the quality of software without altering its functional behaviors. Understanding developers’ refactoring activities is essential to improve software maintainability. The use of machine learning (ML) libraries and frameworks in software systems has significantly increased in recent years, making the maximization of their maintainability crucial. Due to the data-driven nature of ML libraries and frameworks, they often undergo a different development process compared to traditional projects. As a result, they may experience various types of refactoring, such as those related to the data. The state-of-the-art refactoring detection tools have not been tested in the ML technical domain, and they are not specifically designed to detect ML-specific refactoring types (e.g., data manipulation) in ML projects; therefore, they may not adequately find all potential refactoring operations, specifically the ML-specific refactoring operations. Furthermore, a vast number of ML libraries and frameworks are written in Python, which has limited tooling support for refactoring detection. PyRef, a rule-based and state-of-the-art tool for Python refactoring detection, can identify 11 types of refactoring operations with relatively high precision. In contrast, for other languages such as Java, state-of-the-art tools are capable of detecting a much more comprehensive list of refactorings. For example, Rminer can detect 99 types of refactoring for Java projects. Inspired by previous work that leverages commit messages to detect refactoring, we introduce MLRefScanner, a prototype tool that applies ML techniques to detect refactoring commits in ML Python projects. MLRefScanner detects commits involving both ML-specific refactoring operations and additional refactoring operations beyond the scope of state-of-the-art refactoring detection tools. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, we evaluate MLRefScanner on 199 ML open source libraries and frameworks and compare MLRefScanner against other refactoring detection tools for Python projects. Our findings show that MLRefScanner outperforms existing tools in detecting refactoring-related commits, achieving an overall precision of 94% and recall of 82% for identifying refactoring-related commits. MLRefScanner can identify commits with ML-specific and additional refactoring operations compared to state-of-the-art refactoring detection tools. When combining MLRefScanner with PyRef, we can further increase the precision and recall to 95% and 99%, respectively. MLRefScanner provides a valuable contribution to the Python ML community, as it allows ML developers to detect refactoring-related commits more effectively in their ML Python projects. Our study sheds light on the promising direction of leveraging machine learning techniques to detect refactoring activities for other programming languages or technical domains where the commonly used rule-based refactoring detection approaches are not sufficient.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".