ML-specific code smells occur 41-94 times less often than general Python smells in 279 projects, with associations to commit frequency and domain but none for general smells or most other project characteristics.
InProceedings of the 31st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Soft- ware Engineering (ASE ’16)
3 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
3
Pith papers citing it
fields
cs.SE 3years
2026 3verdicts
UNVERDICTED 3representative citing papers
Large-scale analysis of AI bot PRs shows Copilot and Codex achieve the highest CI/CD success rates but more frequent AI contributions correlate with reduced workflow reliability.
FlaXifyer applies few-shot learning on pre-trained language models to categorize intermittent CI job failures from logs at 84.3% Macro F1 and 92.0% Top-2 accuracy using 12 examples per category, with LogSift reducing log review effort by 74.4%.
citing papers explorer
-
Comparing ML-Specific and General Python Code Smells Across Project Characteristics
ML-specific code smells occur 41-94 times less often than general Python smells in 279 projects, with associations to commit frequency and domain but none for general smells or most other project characteristics.
-
Reliability of AI Bots Footprints in GitHub Actions CI/CD Workflows
Large-scale analysis of AI bot PRs shows Copilot and Codex achieve the highest CI/CD success rates but more frequent AI contributions correlate with reduced workflow reliability.
-
Predicting Intermittent Job Failure Categories for Diagnosis Using Few-Shot Fine-Tuned Language Models
FlaXifyer applies few-shot learning on pre-trained language models to categorize intermittent CI job failures from logs at 84.3% Macro F1 and 92.0% Top-2 accuracy using 12 examples per category, with LogSift reducing log review effort by 74.4%.