Cited by 80Software Engineering ResearchAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesSoftware System Performance and Reliability

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Decoupling level: a new metric for architectural maintenance complexity

Open access
Mo, Ran, Cai, Yuanfang, Kazman, Rick, Xiao, Lu, Feng, Qiong·2016·Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering

Abstract

Despite decades of research on software metrics, we still cannot reliably measure if one design is more maintainable than another. Software managers and architects need to understand whether their software architecture is "good enough", whether it is decaying over time and, if so, by how much. In this paper, we contribute a new architecture maintainability metric---Decoupling Level (DL)---derived from Baldwin and Clark's option theory. Instead of measuring how coupled an architecture is, we measure how well the software can be decoupled into small and independently replaceable modules. We measured the DL for 108 open source projects and 21 industrial projects, each of which has multiple releases. Our main result shows that the larger the DL, the better the architecture. By "better" we mean: the more likely bugs and changes can be localized and separated, and the more likely that developers can make changes independently. The DL metric also opens the possibility of quantifying canonical principles of single responsibility and separation of concerns, aiding cross-project comparison and architecture decay monitoring.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2884781.2884825

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Literature has proposed various metrics to measure software architecture quality, including coupling and cohesion.

    “Literature has proposed various metrics to measure the quality of software architectures, including coupling [67] and cohesion [77].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. 10.5555/555152 · DOI
  2. 10.1007/s11219-011-9140-0 · DOI
  3. 10.1109/ICSM.2011.6080827 · DOI
  4. 10.1109/ICSME.2014.43 · DOI
  5. 10.1109/ASE.2006.53 · DOI
  6. 10.1145/2465478.2465480 · DOI
  7. 10.1109/TSE.2009.42 · DOI
  8. 10.1109/32.295895 · DOI
  9. F. B. e Abreu. The mood metrics set. In Proc. ECOOP'95 Workshop on Metrics, 1995.
  10. 10.5555/850947.853338 · DOI
  11. 10.5555/186897 · DOI
  12. 10.1080/09658210344000530 · DOI
  13. 10.1109/32.859533 · DOI
  14. 10.5555/540137 · DOI
  15. 10.1023/A:1009784121652 · DOI
  16. 10.1109/QUATIC.2007.7 · DOI
  17. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1912.tb05611.x · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.5555/2819009.2819037 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/0164-1212(93)90077-B · DOI
  20. Y. Lin, X. Peng, Y. Cai, D. Dig, D. Zheng, and W. Zhao. Refactoring navigator: Interactive and guided refactoring with search-based recommendation. In Submission, 2015.
  21. 10.5555/177063 · DOI
  22. 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0552 · DOI
  23. 10.1109/TSE.1976.233837 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1007/s11219-005-1754-7 · DOI
  25. 10.1109/WICSA.2015.12 · DOI
  26. 10.1145/1134285.1134349 · DOI
  27. 10.1109/ICSM.1992.242525 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/0164-1212(94)90067-1 · DOI
  29. 10.1109/TSE.2005.49 · DOI
  30. 10.5555/2486788.2486910 · DOI
  31. 10.1109/WICSA.2009.5290817 · DOI
  32. 10.1145/503271.503224 · DOI
  33. 10.1145/503209.503224 · DOI
  34. 10.1109/ASE.2011.6100072 · DOI
  35. 10.1002/smr.345 · DOI
  36. 10.1109/ASE.2009.53 · DOI
  37. 10.1145/2568225.2568241 · DOI
  38. 10.1145/2635868.2661677 · DOI
  39. 10.1049/iet-sen.2008.0084 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mo, R., Cai, Y., Kazman, R., Xiao, L., & Feng, Q.
Affiliations
  • Drexel University (US)
  • University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering
Publisher
ACM
Published
2016-05-14
Pages
499-510
ISSN
0270-5257 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2392975828
Cited by
80
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3
FWCI
8.77
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (CCF-1065189,CCF-1514315,CCF-1514561)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
Keywords
software metrics, option theory, modular software design, separation of concerns, bug localization, open source software

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review