Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2006.00385

An Empirical Study of Software Exceptions in the Field using Search Logs

Foyzul Hassan·Chetan Bansal·Nachiappan Nagappan·Thomas Zimmermann·Ahmed Hassan Awadallah
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Software engineers spend a substantial amount of time using Web search to accomplish software engineering tasks. Such search tasks include finding code snippets, API documentation, seeking help with debugging, etc. While debugging a bug or crash, one of the common practices of software engineers is to search for information about the associated error or exception traces on the internet. In this paper, we analyze query logs from a leading commercial general-purpose search engine (GPSE) such as Google, Yahoo! or Bing to carry out a large scale study of software exceptions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large scale study to analyze how Web search is used to find information about exceptions. We analyzed about 1 million exception related search queries from a random sample of 5 billion web search queries. To extract exceptions from unstructured query text, we built a novel and high-performance machine learning model with a F1-score of 0.82. Using the machine learning model, we extracted exceptions from raw queries and performed popularity, effort, success, query characteristic and web domain analysis. We also performed programming language-specific analysis to give a better view of the exception search behavior. These techniques can help improve existing methods, documentation and tools for exception analysis and prediction. Further, similar techniques can be applied for APIs, frameworks, etc.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.IR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Foyzul Hassan, Chetan Bansal, Nachiappan Nagappan, Thomas Zimmermann, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah. 2020-05-30. An Empirical Study of Software Exceptions in the Field using Search Logs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.00385

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗