Follow Your Nose -- Which Code Smells are Worth Chasing?
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
The common use case of code smells assumes causality: Identify a smell, remove it, and by doing so improve the code. We empirically investigate their fitness to this use. We present a list of properties that code smells should have if they indeed cause lower quality. We evaluated the smells in 31,687 Java files from 677 GitHub repositories, all the repositories with 200+ commits in 2019. We measured the influence of smells on four metrics for quality, productivity, and bug detection efficiency. Out of 151 code smells computed by the CheckStyle smell detector, less than 20% were found to be potentially causal, and only a handful are rather robust. The strongest smells deal with simplicity, defensive programming, and abstraction. Files without the potentially causal smells are 50% more likely to be of high quality. Unfortunately, most smells are not removed, and developers tend to remove the easy ones and not the effective ones.
Results and benchmarks
The common use case of code smells assumes causality: Identify a smell, remove it, and by doing so improve the code.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
Historical official implementation (not recommended for new builds)
Only a historical official implementation is available
Use with caution for new projects; verify against current tooling and maintained community alternatives.
evidencebp/analysis_utils · 2 stars · Last push May 4, 2026
Only historical official repository was found (evidencebp/analysis_utils).
Open evidencebp/analysis_utils- Only historical official implementation is available
- No direct maintained implementation is currently verified.
- Only historical official repository was found: evidencebp/analysis_utils.
- No maintained paper-verified implementation met reliability thresholds.
Compare implementation paths
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
- Maintenance
- Recently updated
- Confidence
- High
- Reproducibility
- Limited
- Stars
- 2
- Last push
- May 4, 2026 (113d)
Official implementation from Papers with Code · Repository link is mentioned in the paper metadata
- No CI pipeline detected
- No Docker setup
- Dependency manifest missing
- Maintenance
- Stale
- Confidence
- High
- Reproducibility
- Limited
- Stars
- 1
- Last push
- Feb 5, 2024 (932d)
Official implementation from Papers with Code · Repository link is mentioned in the paper metadata
- No push in 12+ months
- No CI pipeline detected
- No Docker setup
- Maintenance
- Stale
- Confidence
- High
- Reproducibility
- Limited
- Stars
- 1
- Last push
- May 23, 2023 (1190d)
Official implementation from Papers with Code · Repository link is mentioned in the paper metadata
- No push in 12+ months
- No CI pipeline detected
- No tagged releases
Reproduction readiness
Major work
No dependency manifest, manual reconstruction required
- evidencebp/analysis_utils has no requirements.txt, environment.yml, pyproject.toml, or Dockerfile.
- You will need to reverse-engineer dependencies from import statements in the source code.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Repositories and ecosystem
Official
- evidencebp/generalConfidence: High
evidencebp/general
1 stars · 0 forks · Last push Feb 5, 2024
- evidencebp/follow-your-noseConfidence: High
evidencebp/follow-your-nose
1 stars · 1 forks · Last push May 23, 2023
Community
No additional community repositories detected yet.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXData includes links from Papers with Code ( CC-BY-SA-4.0 ).