Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2408.09128

Identifying Technical Debt and Its Types Across Diverse Software Projects Issues

Abstract

Technical Debt (TD) identification in software projects issues is crucial for maintaining code quality, reducing long-term maintenance costs, and improving overall project health. This study advances TD classification using transformer-based models, addressing the critical need for accurate and efficient TD identification in large-scale software development. Our methodology employs multiple binary classifiers for TD and its type, combined through ensemble learning, to enhance accuracy and robustness in detecting various forms of TD. We train and evaluate these models on a comprehensive dataset from GitHub Archive Issues (2015-2024), supplemented with industrial data validation. We demonstrate that in-project fine-tuned transformer models significantly outperform task-specific fine-tuned models in TD classification, highlighting the importance of project-specific context in accurate TD identification. Our research also reveals the superiority of specialized binary classifiers over multi-class models for TD and its type identification, enabling more targeted debt resolution strategies. A comparative analysis shows that the smaller DistilRoBERTa model is more effective than larger language models like GPTs for TD classification tasks, especially after fine-tuning, offering insights into efficient model selection for specific TD detection tasks. The study also assesses generalization capabilities using metrics such as MCC, AUC ROC, Recall, and F1 score, focusing on model effectiveness, fine-tuning impact, and relative performance. By validating our approach on out-of-distribution and real-world industrial datasets, we ensure practical applicability, addressing the diverse nature of software projects.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Karthik Shivashankar, Mili Orucevic, Maren Maritsdatter Kruke, Antonio Martini. 2024-08-17. Identifying Technical Debt and Its Types Across Diverse Software Projects Issues. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.09128

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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