Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2506.06508

Information-Theoretic Detection of Unusual Source Code Changes

Adriano Torres·Sebastian Baltes·Christoph Treude·Markus Wagner
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The code base of software projects evolves essentially through inserting and removing information to and from the source code. We can measure this evolution via the elements of information - tokens, words, nodes - of the respective representation of the code. In this work, we approach the measurement of the information content of the source code of open-source projects from an information-theoretic standpoint. Our focus is on the entropy of two fundamental representations of code: tokens and abstract syntax tree nodes, from which we derive definitions of textual and structural entropy. We proceed with an empirical assessment where we evaluate the evolution patterns of the entropy of 95 actively maintained open source projects. We calculate the statistical relationships between our derived entropy metrics and classic methods of measuring code complexity and learn that entropy may capture different dimensions of complexity than classic metrics. Finally, we conduct entropy-based anomaly detection of unusual changes to demonstrate that our approach may effectively recognise unusual source code change events with over 60% precision, and lay the groundwork for improvements to information-theoretic measurement of source code evolution, thus paving the way for a new approach to statically gauging program complexity throughout its development.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Adriano Torres, Sebastian Baltes, Christoph Treude, Markus Wagner. 2025-06-06. Information-Theoretic Detection of Unusual Source Code Changes. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06508

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Combining Type Inference and Automated Unit Test Generation for Python

Automated unit test generation is an established research field that has so far focused on statically-typed programming languages. The lack of type information in dynamically-typed programming languages, such as Python, inhibits test generators, which heavily rely on information about parameter and return types of functions to select suitable arguments when constructing test cases. Since automated test generators inherently rely on frequent execution of candidate tests, we make use of these frequent executions to address this problem by introducing type tracing, which extracts type-related information during execution and gradually refines the available type information. We implement type tracing as an extension of the Pynguin test-generation framework for Python, allowing it (i) to infer parameter types by observing how parameters are used during runtime, (ii) to record the types of values that function calls return, and (iii) to use this type information to increase code coverage. The approach leads to up to 87.8 % more branch coverage, improved mutation scores, and to type information of similar quality to that produced by other state-of-the-art type-inference tools.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Guidelines for Empirical Studies in Software Engineering involving Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used in software engineering (SE) research and practice, yet their non-determinism, opaque training data, and rapidly evolving models threaten the reproducibility and replicability of empirical studies. We address this challenge through a collaborative effort of 22 researchers, presenting a taxonomy of seven study types that organizes how LLMs are used in SE research, together with eight guidelines for designing and reporting such studies. Each guideline distinguishes requirements (must) from recommendations (should) and is contextualized by the study types it applies to. Our guidelines recommend that researchers: (1) declare LLM usage and role; (2) report model versions, configurations, and customizations; (3) document the system and prompt design beyond the model; (4) report session traces, i.e., interaction logs and runtime traces; (5) use suitable baselines, benchmarks, and metrics; (6) include an open LLM as a baseline; (7) validate LLM outputs against human judgment; and (8) articulate limitations and mitigations. We complement the guidelines with an applicability matrix mapping guidelines to study types and a reporting checklist for authors and reviewers. We maintain the study types and guidelines online as a living resource for the community to use and shape (llm-guidelines$.$org).

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

MigrateLib: a tool for end-to-end Python library migration

Library migration is the process of replacing a library with a similar one in a software project. Manual library migration is time consuming and error prone, as it requires developers to understand the Application Programming Interfaces (API) of both libraries, map equivalent APIs, and perform the necessary code transformations. Due to the difficulty of the library migration process, most of the existing automated techniques and tooling stop at the API mapping stage or support a limited set of libraries and code transformations. In this paper, we develop an end-to-end solution that can automatically migrate code between any arbitrary pair of Python libraries that provide similar functionality. Due to the promising capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in code generation and transformation, we use LLMs as the primary engine for migration. Before building the tool, we first study the capabilities of LLMs for library migration on a benchmark of 321 real-world library migrations. We find that LLMs can effectively perform library migration, but some post-processing steps can further improve the performance. Based on this, we develop MigrateLib, a command line application that combines the power of LLMs, static analysis, and dynamic analysis to provide accurate library migration. We evaluate MigrateLib on 717 real-world Python applications that are not from our benchmark. We find that MigrateLib can migrate 32% of the migrations with complete correctness. Of the remaining migrations, only 14% of the migration-related changes are left for developers to fix for more than half of the projects.

cs.SE↗