Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Automatic Identification of Machine Learning-Specific Code Smells

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2508.02541 v1 pith:T4GMOKCL submitted 2025-08-04 cs.SE cs.AI

Automatic Identification of Machine Learning-Specific Code Smells

classification cs.SE cs.AI
keywords codesmellsdesignidentificationmlpylinttooltoolsapplications
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Machine learning (ML) has rapidly grown in popularity, becoming vital to many industries. Currently, the research on code smells in ML applications lacks tools and studies that address the identification and validity of ML-specific code smells. This work investigates suitable methods and tools to design and develop a static code analysis tool (MLpylint) based on code smell criteria. This research employed the Design Science Methodology. In the problem identification phase, a literature review was conducted to identify ML-specific code smells. In solution design, a secondary literature review and consultations with experts were performed to select methods and tools for implementing the tool. We evaluated the tool on data from 160 open-source ML applications sourced from GitHub. We also conducted a static validation through an expert survey involving 15 ML professionals. The results indicate the effectiveness and usefulness of the MLpylint. We aim to extend our current approach by investigating ways to introduce MLpylint seamlessly into development workflows, fostering a more productive and innovative developer environment.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Comparing ML-Specific and General Python Code Smells Across Project Characteristics

    cs.SE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    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.