Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Follow Your Nose -- Which Code Smells are Worth Chasing?

Idan Amit, Nili Ben Ezra, Dror G. FeitelsonPublished Mar 2, 2021
DOI Publisher
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
1
Review before use

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

Freshness tier: cold
The common use case of code smells assumes causality: Identify a smell, remove it, and by doing so improve the code.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Spacial/csstuff is the closest maintained adjacent implementation (Matches contextual method/domain keyword: computer science). It is not paper-verified; validate algorithm and evaluation setup against the paper before trusting reported metrics. Community adoption signal: 85 GitHub stars.

Reproduction risks
  • Adjacent implementations are not paper-verified
  • Recommended repository is adjacent and not paper-verified.
  • Adjacent implementation match confidence is low.

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Aug 26, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Repositories and ecosystem

Closest related implementations

These are not paper-verified. Use them as reference points when no direct implementation is available.

  • Spacial/csstuff Adjacent · Confidence: Low · 85 stars

    Matches contextual method/domain keyword: computer science

No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.

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

2

Citations

76

References

Tasks

Code smell, Computer science, Code (set theory), Quality (philosophy), Abstraction, Software quality, Software

Methods

None detected

Domains

Causality (physics)

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.