|
|
|
|
|
|
by mahaloz
824 days ago
|
|
|
As others have said, the standardization of metrics is still something debated, but at the same time, this space has been explored by various top-tier papers that your paper did not cite. For example, DREAM [1], evaluated using the classic metric of goto-emittence. Rev.ng [2], evaluated using Cyclomatic Complexity and gotos. SAILR [3], evaluated using the previous metrics and a Graph Edit Distance score for the structure of the code. I feel that without a justification for dropping previously established metrics by the peer review process, you weaken your new metrics. However, I still think this is an interesting paper. It just could be made more legit by thoroughly reading/citing previous work in the area and building an argument for why you may go against it. [1]: https://net.cs.uni-bonn.de/fileadmin/ag/martini/Staff/yakdan...
[2]: https://rev.ng/downloads/asiaccs-2020-paper.pdf
[3]: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/sec23winter-prepub-301-b... |
|
|