Renaming identifiers in source code is a common refactoring task in software development. When renaming an identifier, other identifiers containing words with the same naming intention related to the renaming should be renamed simultaneously. However, identifying these related identifiers can be challenging. This study introduces a technique called RENAS, which identifies and recommends related identifiers that should be renamed simultaneously in Java applications. RENAS determines priority scores for renaming candidates based on the relationships and similarities among identifiers. Since identifiers that have a relationship and/or have similar vocabulary in the source code are often renamed together, their priority scores are determined based on these factors. Identifiers with higher priority are recommended to be renamed together. Through an evaluation involving real renaming instances extracted from change histories and validated manually, RENAS demonstrated an improvement in the F1-measure by more than 0.11 compared with existing renaming recommendation approaches.

Background: The renaming of program identifiers is the most common refactoring operation. Because some identifiers are related to each other, developers may need to rename related identifiers together. Aims: To understand how developers rename multiple identifiers simultaneously, it is necessary to consider the relationships between identifiers in the program and the brief matching for non-identical but semantically similar identifiers. Method: We investigate the relationships between co-renamed identifiers and identify the types of their relationships that contribute to improving the recommendation using more than 1M of renaming instances collected from the histories of opensource software projects. We also evaluate and compare the impact of co-renaming and the relationships between identifiers when inflections occur in the words in identifiers are taken into account. Results: We revealed several relationships of identifiers that are frequently found in the co-renamed identifiers, such as the identifiers of methods in the same class or an identifier defining a variable and another used for initializing the variable, depending on the type of the renamed identifiers. Additionally, the consideration of inflections did not affect the tendency of the relationships. Conclusion: These results suggest an approach that prioritizes the identifiers to be recommended depending on their types and the type of the renamed identifier.