Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2404.06572

Detecting Refactoring Commits in Machine Learning Python Projects: A Machine Learning-Based Approach

Abstract

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.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shayan Noei, Heng Li, Ying Zou. 2024-04-09. Detecting Refactoring Commits in Machine Learning Python Projects: A Machine Learning-Based Approach. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06572

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE