Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2510.21966

ArchISMiner: A Framework for Automatic Mining of Architectural Issue-Solution Pairs from Online Developer Communities

Abstract

Stack Overflow (SO), a leading online community forum, is a rich source of software development knowledge. However, locating architectural knowledge, such as architectural solutions remains challenging due to the overwhelming volume of unstructured content and fragmented discussions. Developers must manually sift through posts to find relevant architectural insights, which is time-consuming and error-prone. This study introduces ArchISMiner, a framework for mining architectural knowledge from SO. The framework comprises two complementary components: ArchPI and ArchISPE. ArchPI trains and evaluates multiple models, including conventional ML/DL models, Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs), and Large Language Models (LLMs), and selects the best-performing model to automatically identify Architecture-Related Posts (ARPs) among programming-related discussions. ArchISPE employs an indirect supervised approach that leverages diverse features, including BERT embeddings and local TextCNN features, to extract architectural issue-solution pairs. Our evaluation shows that the best model in ArchPI achieves an F1-score of 0.960 in ARP detection, and ArchISPE outperforms baselines in both SE and NLP fields, achieving F1-scores of 0.883 for architectural issues and 0.894 for solutions. A user study further validated the quality (e.g., relevance and usefulness) of the identified ARPs and the extracted issue-solution pairs. Moreover, we applied ArchISMiner to three additional forums, releasing a dataset of over 18K architectural issue-solution pairs. Overall, ArchISMiner can help architects and developers identify ARPs and extract succinct, relevant, and useful architectural knowledge from developer communities more accurately and efficiently. The replication package of this study has been provided at https://github.com/JeanMusenga/ArchISPE

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Musengamana Jean de Dieu, Ruiyin Li, Peng Liang, Mojtaba Shahin, Muhammad Waseem, Arif Ali Khan, Bangchao Wang, Mst Shamima Aktar. 2025-10-24. ArchISMiner: A Framework for Automatic Mining of Architectural Issue-Solution Pairs from Online Developer Communities. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.21966

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