mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A systematic literature review on the code smells datasets and validation mechanisms

arXiv 2306.01377 ↗First posted 2 Jun 2023cs.SE cs.AI cs.PLcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The accuracy reported for code smell-detecting tools varies depending on the dataset used to evaluate the tools. Our survey of 45 existing datasets reveals that the adequacy of a dataset for detecting smells highly depends on relevant properties such as the size, severity level, project types, number of each type of smell, number of smells, and the ratio of smelly to non-smelly samples in the dataset. Most existing datasets support God Class, Long Method, and Feature Envy while six smells in Fowler and Beck's catalog are not supported by any datasets. We conclude that existing datasets suffer from imbalanced samples, lack of supporting severity level, and restriction to Java language.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 150 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jun 2023.

Builds on

9 of 150 references.

References · 9

  1. 2018Kitsune: An Ensemble of Autoencoders for Online Network Intrusion Detectioncited by 121
  2. 2018N-BaIoT: Network-based Detection of IoT Botnet Attacks Using Deep Autoencoderscited by 67
  3. 2020Code Smells and Refactoring: A Tertiary Systematic Review of Challenges and Observationscited by 18
  4. 2019Code Smell Detection using Multilabel Classification Approachcited by 6
  5. 2019The Technical Debt Datasetcited by 6
  6. 2017RefDiff: Detecting Refactorings in Version Historiescited by 5
  7. 2022An ensemble meta-estimator to predict source code testabilitycited by 5
  8. 2019A Machine-learning Based Ensemble Method For Anti-patterns Detectioncited by 4
  9. 2022Learning to predict test effectivenesscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1.

2 papers.