Pythonic vs Refactorable Pythonic: On the relationship between Pythonic idioms and code quality in machine learning projects

Python is increasingly becoming the lingua franca for developing Machine Learning (ML) systems, thanks to a rich ecosystem of libraries and an emphasis on readability. In this context, Pythonic idioms are seen as stylistic conventions that support maintainable and efficient code. Conversely, Refactorable-Pythonic idioms refer to patterns that can be refactored into more idiomatic Python, improving code quality in terms of maintainability, performance, and clarity. While the assumptions about idiomaticity are widely accepted in practice, the extent to which Pythonic or Refactorable-Pythonic idioms relate to software quality in ML projects has not been systematically validated. To address this lack of empirical evidence, this paper conducts a large-scale study to assess how Pythonic and Refactorable-Pythonic idioms are related to code quality in ML systems. We analyze 303 open-source Python projects from the NICHE dataset, distinguishing between “well-engineered” (i.e., projects that adopt structured development practices such as testing, CI, documentation, and packaging) and “non-engineered” (i.e., projects that lack such characteristics). Our analysis proceeds in two main phases: (i) idiom detection, where we extract Pythonic and Refactorable-Pythonic code patterns using a combination of existing and custom detectors; and (ii) quality assessment, where we detect Python-specific smells and relate them to code metrics and other quality indicators. Truth Value Test and Assign Multiple Targets are the most common Pythonic and Refactorable-Pythonic idioms, respectively. In “well-engineered” projects, both idiom types positively correlate with Python-specific code smells, suggesting that idiomatic usage does not always align with higher code quality. In contrast, in “non-engineered” projects, the presence of smells is more strongly influenced by structural factors such as the number of lines of code, complexity, and commit activity. We conclude by distilling lessons learned, implications, and future research directions.