Handling uncertainty in SBSE: a possibilistic evolutionary approach for code smells detection

Code smells, also known as anti-patterns, are poor design or implementation choices that hinder program comprehensibility and maintainability. While several code smell detection methods have been proposed, Mantyla et al. identified the uncertainty issue as one of the major individual human factors that may affect developer’s decisions about the smelliness of software classes: they may indeed have different opinions mainly due to their different knowledge and expertise. Unfortunately, almost all the existing approaches assume data perfection and neglect the uncertainty when identifying the labels of the software classes. Ignoring or rejecting any uncertainty form could lead to a considerable loss of information, which could significantly deteriorate the effectiveness of the detection and identification processes. Inspired by our previous works and motivated by the interesting performance of the PDT (Possibilistic Decision Tree) in classifying uncertain data, we propose ADIPE (Anti-pattern Detection and Identification using Possibilistic decision tree Evolution), as a new tool that evolves and optimizes a set of detectors (PDTs) that could effectively deal with software class labels uncertainty using some concepts from the Possibility theory. ADIPE uses a PBE (Possibilistic Base of Examples: a dataset with possibilistic labels) that it is built using a set of opinion-based classifiers (i.e., a set of probabilistic classifiers) with the aim to simulate human developers’ uncertainty. A set of advisors and probabilistic classifiers are employed in order to mimic the subjectivity and the doubtfulness of software engineers. A detailed experimental study is conducted to show the merits and outperformance of ADIPE in dealing with uncertainty in code smells detection and identification with respect to four relevant state-of-the-art methods, including the baseline PDT. The experimental study was performed in uncertain and certain environments based on two suitable metrics: PF-measure_dist (Possibilistic F-measure_Distance) and IAC (Information Affinity Criterion); which corresponds to the F-measure and Accuracy (PCC) for the certain case. The obtained results for the uncertain environment reveal that for the detection process, the PF-measure_dist of ADIPE ranges within [0.9047 and 0.9285], and its IAC lies within [0.9288 and 0.9557]; while for the identification process, the PF-measure_dist of ADIPE is in [0.8545, 0.9228], and its IAC lies within [0.8751, 0.933]. ADIPE is able to find 35% more code smells with uncertain data than the second best algorithm (i.e., BLOP). In addition, ADIPE succeeds to decrease the number of false alarms (i.e., misclassified smelly instances) with a rate equals to 12%. Our proposed approach is also able to identify 43% more smell types than BLOP and decreases the number of false alarms with a rate equals to 32%. Similar results were obtained for the certain environment, which demonstrate the ability of ADIPE to also deal with the certain environment.