Android Source Code Smells: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction Modern software developers strive to develop applications that are robust, easy to maintain, and possess high levels of quality. However, code smells can hinder this goal as they are visible signs of underlying issues. Numerous techniques and tools have been proposed for detecting code smells in various contexts and programming languages. Despite this, research on Android‐specific code smells and their impact on external quality attributes is still in its early stages. Objective This study aims to provide a comprehensive summary of state‐of‐the‐art techniques, tools, and approaches used for detecting and refactoring code smells in Android applications. Methodology A systematic literature review was conducted between November 2007 and December 2023, adhering to standard guidelines. In total, 79 primary studies were identified, analyzed, and synthesized. Results A total of 237 code smells were identified using 51 techniques and tools, based on seven distinct approaches. Efficiency was found to be the most affected external quality attribute. The code smell Durable Wakelock was the most studied. Challenges Despite the extensive research, the software engineering community faces numerous challenges. These include a lack of in‐depth investigation into Android‐specific code smells, a limited number of studied quality attributes, insufficient involvement of industry experts in the research process, scarcity of Android‐oriented metrics, and dependence on industry‐exclusive datasets. Future Directions This review suggests potential research directions that are valuable for researchers and practitioners seeking to gain insights into current open research problems in this domain.
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 | 0.017 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".