Detecting Refactoring Commits in Machine Learning Python Projects: A Machine Learning-Based Approach
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Refactoring enhances software quality without altering its functional behaviors. Understanding the refactoring activities of developers is crucial to improving software maintainability. With the increasing use of machine learning (ML) libraries and frameworks, maximizing their maintainability is crucial. Due to the data-driven nature of ML projects, they often undergo different refactoring operations (e.g., data manipulation), for which existing refactoring tools lack ML-specific detection capabilities. Furthermore, a large number of ML libraries are written in Python, which has limited tools for refactoring detection. PyRef, a rule-based and state-of-the-art tool for Python refactoring detection, can identify 11 types of refactoring operations. In comparison, Rminer can detect 99 types of refactoring for Java projects. We introduce MLRefScanner, a prototype tool that applies machine-learning techniques to detect refactoring commits in ML Python projects. MLRefScanner identifies commits with both ML-specific and general refactoring operations. Evaluating MLRefScanner on 199 ML projects demonstrates its superior performance compared to state-of-the-art approaches, achieving an overall 94% precision and 82% recall. Combining it with PyRef further boosts performance to 95% precision and 99% recall. Our study highlights the potential of ML-driven approaches in detecting refactoring across diverse programming languages and technical domains, addressing the limitations of rule-based detection methods.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 9 Apr 2024.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 2.
4 papers.
- 2026SemaDiff: Identifying Semantic-Changing Commits with Generated Code and Testscited by 1
- 2025Towards Refining Developer Questions using LLM-Based Named Entity Recognition for Developer Chatroom Conversationscited by 0
- 2025An Empirical Framework for Evaluating Semantic Preservation Using Hugging Facecited by 0
- 2026From Human-Centric to Agentic Code Review: The Impact of Different Generations of Generative AI Technology on Review Qualitycited by 0
- 2026From Human-Centric to Agentic Code Review: The Impact of Different Generations of Generative AI Technology on Review Quality14 Jul 2026
- 2026SemaDiff: Identifying Semantic-Changing Commits with Generated Code and Tests14 Jul 2026
- 2025An Empirical Framework for Evaluating Semantic Preservation Using Hugging Face8 Dec 2025
- 2025Towards Refining Developer Questions using LLM-Based Named Entity Recognition for Developer Chatroom Conversations2 Mar 2025