Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Fairness-aware machine learning engineering: how far are we?

Empirical software engineering·2023
Same author

Static test flakiness prediction: How Far Can We Go?

Empirical software engineering·2022
Same author

FindICI: Using machine learning to detect linguistic inconsistencies between code and natural language descriptions in infrastructure-as-code.

Empirical software engineering·2022
Same author

The making of accessible Android applications: an empirical study on the state of the practice.

Empirical software engineering·2022
Same author

On the adequacy of static analysis warnings with respect to code smell prediction.

Empirical software engineering·2022
Same journal

How students use generative AI for software testing: An observational study.

Empirical software engineering·2026
Same journal

Is common sense all you need? Using expert defined rules to identify vulnerability patches instead of machine learning.

Empirical software engineering·2026
Same journal

Less is more: usefulness of data flow diagrams and large language models for security threat validation.

Empirical software engineering·2026
Same journal

SecMLOps: A comprehensive framework for integrating security throughout the machine learning operations lifecycle.

Empirical software engineering·2026
Same journal

Tools and benchmarks evolve: what is their impact on parameter tuning in SBSE experiments?

Empirical software engineering·2025
Same journal

AI support for data scientists: An empirical study on workflow and alternative code recommendations.

Empirical software engineering·2025
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 1, 2025

Simple and Computer-assisted Olfactory Testing for Mice
06:40

Simple and Computer-assisted Olfactory Testing for Mice

Published on: June 15, 2015

10.1K

Machine learning-based test smell detection.

Valeria Pontillo1,2, Dario Amoroso d'Aragona3, Fabiano Pecorelli1

  • 1Software Engineering (SeSa) Lab - University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy.

Empirical Software Engineering
|March 8, 2024
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Machine learning significantly improves test smell detection over heuristic methods, but performance remains limited. Further research is needed to overcome challenges in accurately identifying these code design flaws.

Keywords:
Empirical software engineeringMachine learningTest code qualityTest smells

More Related Videos

Testing for Metacognitive Responding Using an Odor-based Delayed Match-to-Sample Test in Rats
08:06

Testing for Metacognitive Responding Using an Odor-based Delayed Match-to-Sample Test in Rats

Published on: June 18, 2018

7.2K
Testing for Odor Discrimination and Habituation in Mice
06:41

Testing for Odor Discrimination and Habituation in Mice

Published on: May 5, 2015

17.8K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 1, 2025

Simple and Computer-assisted Olfactory Testing for Mice
06:40

Simple and Computer-assisted Olfactory Testing for Mice

Published on: June 15, 2015

10.1K
Testing for Metacognitive Responding Using an Odor-based Delayed Match-to-Sample Test in Rats
08:06

Testing for Metacognitive Responding Using an Odor-based Delayed Match-to-Sample Test in Rats

Published on: June 18, 2018

7.2K
Testing for Odor Discrimination and Habituation in Mice
06:41

Testing for Odor Discrimination and Habituation in Mice

Published on: May 5, 2015

17.8K

Area of Science:

  • Software Engineering
  • Software Quality Assurance
  • Machine Learning Applications

Background:

  • Test smells indicate suboptimal design choices in test cases, negatively impacting maintainability and effectiveness.
  • Automated heuristic-based techniques exist for test smell detection but have limited performance and rely on tunable thresholds.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To design and evaluate a novel machine learning (ML)-based approach for detecting four types of test smells.
  • To compare the performance of ML models against state-of-the-art heuristic-based detection techniques.

Main Methods:

  • Development of the largest manually-validated dataset of test smells for experimentation.
  • Training and assessment of six machine learning models in within- and cross-project scenarios.
  • Comparative analysis of ML-based detection against existing heuristic methods.

Main Results:

  • The ML-based approach demonstrated significantly better performance than heuristic techniques.
  • However, no ML model achieved an average F-Measure exceeding 51%, indicating limited detection accuracy.
  • A qualitative investigation identified current challenges hindering effective test smell detection.

Conclusions:

  • While ML offers improvements, current approaches struggle to achieve high accuracy in test smell detection.
  • Addressing identified challenges is crucial for advancing the field of automated test smell detection.
  • Future research should focus on overcoming these limitations to enhance software quality assurance.