arXiv:2610.32466v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: God-class and god-method detectors mark concentrated complexity with a raw-scale threshold, a constant fitted on a corpus and re-fitted when the population moves. This paper pre-registers a test of a rule with no raw-scale constant: a unit is a god unit when its complexity is a robust outlier for its own codebase, a modified z-score of 3.5 or more. On 445 repositories in ten languages, 171 of them Java, and the 492 Java repositories of MLCQ, the rule is scored against PMD's GodClass, MLCQ's reviewers and two further definitions, with signal and cutoff chosen on half the repositories and read on the rest. LLM-written code may gather its complexity differently, the case for a detector that needs no re-fitting; the first question is whether one can match the scale of existing human-written code. The verdict is inconclusive on both populations, by different arms. The rule ranks PMD's god classes from the per-file maximum of cognitive complexity at per-repository AUCs of 0.916 and 0.908. On the main run it is, at its default, non-inferior within the margin to a cutoff tuned on the same population on recovery, and flags about twice as many non-god classes; on MLCQ it flags about as many and falls short of the margin on pooled recovery. Pooled, the raw value ranks god classes better than the per-repository score, and a cutoff carried between the populations lost almost nothing: both are human-written code on one scale, so the test is of matching that scale, not of surviving a shift. The rule's extra flags are small classes, just over half holding a method at PMD's own method-level threshold; its misses are large classes whose complexity is spread over many methods. Two readers of the source did not agree on what the extra flags are. Concentration finds where the complexity is; whether that place is a god unit is a question about coupling, which a registered follow-on study takes up.
Continue to arXiv Software Engineering →You are being forwarded in 6s — stay on this page