Automatic Detection of Five API Documentation Smells: Practitioners' Perspectives
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The learning and usage of an API is supported by official documentation. Like source code, API documentation is itself a software product. Several research results show that bad design in API documentation can make the reuse of API features difficult. Indeed, similar to code smells or code antipatterns, poorly designed API documentation can also exhibit 'smells'. Such documentation smells can be described as bad documentation styles that do not necessarily produce an incorrect documentation but nevertheless make the documentation difficult to properly understand and to use. Recent research on API documentation has focused on finding content inaccuracies in API documentation and to complement API documentation with external resources (e.g., crowd-shared code examples). We are aware of no research that focused on the automatic detection of API documentation smells. This paper makes two contributions. First, we produce a catalog of five API documentation smells by consulting literature on API documentation presentation problems. We create a benchmark dataset of 1,000 API documentation units by exhaustively and manually validating the presence of the five smells in Java official API reference and instruction documentation. Second, we conduct a survey of 21 professional software developers to validate the catalog. The developers agreed that they frequently encounter all five smells in API official documentation and 95.2% of them reported that the presence of the documentation smells negatively affects their productivity. The participants wished for tool support to automatically detect and fix the smells in API official documentation. We develop a suite of rule-based, deep and shallow machine learning classifiers to automatically detect the smells. The best performing classifier BERT, a deep learning model, achieves F1-scores of 0.75 - 0.97.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 16 Feb 2021.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 3.
6 papers.
- 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 389
- 2024Beyond pip install: Evaluating LLM Agents for the Automated Installation of Python Projectscited by 21
- 2025On Benchmarking Code LLMs for Android Malware Analysiscited by 12
- 2026From Junior to Senior: Allocating Agency and Navigating Professional Growth in Agentic AI-Mediated Software Engineeringcited by 1
- 2026Web Agents Should Use Typed Actions Instead of Click-Based Browsingcited by 0
- 2026DOCSCHISEL: Adaptive Tool Documentation Optimization Framework for LLM Agentscited by 0
- 2026DOCSCHISEL: Adaptive Tool Documentation Optimization Framework for LLM Agents10 Aug 2026
- 2026Web Agents Should Use Typed Actions Instead of Click-Based Browsing19 Feb 2026
- 2026From Junior to Senior: Allocating Agency and Navigating Professional Growth in Agentic AI-Mediated Software Engineering31 Jan 2026
- 2025On Benchmarking Code LLMs for Android Malware Analysis1 Apr 2025
- 2024Beyond pip install: Evaluating LLM Agents for the Automated Installation of Python Projects9 Dec 2024
- 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review21 Aug 2023