ArticleScientific reports2024
Detecting refactoring type of software commit messages based on ensemble machine learning algorithms.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Refactoring is a well-established topic in contemporary software engineering, focusing on enhancing software's structural design without altering its external behavior. Commit messages play a vital role in tracking changes to the codebase. However, determining the exact refactoring required in the code can be challenging due to various refactoring types. Prior studies have attempted to classify refactoring documentation by type, achieving acceptable results in accuracy, precision, recall, F1-Score, and other performance metrics. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement. To address this, we propose a novel approach using four ensemble Machine Learning algorithms to detect refactoring types. Our experimentation utilized a dataset containing 573 commits, with text cleaning and preprocessing applied to address data imbalances. Various techniques, including hyperparameter optimization, feature engineering with TF-IDF and bag-of-words, and binary transformation using one-vs-one and one-vs-rest classifiers, were employed to enhance accuracy. Results indicate that the experiment involving feature engineering using the TF-IDF technique outperformed other methods. Notably, the XGBoost algorithm with the same technique achieved superior performance across all metrics, attaining 100% accuracy. Moreover, our results surpass the current state-of-the-art performance using the same dataset. Our proposed approach bears significant implications for software engineering, particularly in enhancing the internal quality of software.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.