arXiv subjects

Chanchal K. Roy

Publications and source records attributed to Chanchal K. Roy.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Does Order Matter? An Empirical Investigation into the Impact of File Ordering on Code Review Effectiveness

Modern code review is central to software quality, but its effectiveness depends on reviewer expertise, change characteristics, and how tools present changes. Most platforms display modified files alphabetically by default, although our prior work shows that developers find this ordering cognitively misaligned with how they understand multi-file pull requests. Whether these ordering-related attention patterns affect outcomes at scale remains unclear. We present a large-scale study of file ordering and review effectiveness, mining 330,343 multi-file pull requests and 756,814 file instances from 182 GitHub projects in five programming languages. We examine whether file position is associated with later bug-fixing changes, whether pull request size moderates this relationship, and whether reviewer attention, proxied by comments, aligns with latent bug outcomes. Results show statistically significant but modest associations among file position, pull request size, review activity, and latent bug likelihood. Latent bug rates rise from 56.7% at position 1 to 61.5% at position 30. Pull request size has a non-linear relationship with latent bug likelihood: pull requests of about ten files have the lowest risk, while very small and very large ones have elevated rates. Hurdle models show that attention is diluted as pull request size grows: each additional modified file reduces the odds of receiving any review comment by about 8.7%. These findings reveal an attention-effectiveness gap: visible review activity does not necessarily prevent defects. Alphabetical ordering is therefore not a neutral interface default, but a structural feature shaping attention allocation, review coverage, and confidence in review outcomes. We propose context-aware file ordering, dependency-aware grouping, risk-aware prioritization, and per-file coverage indicators to make review attention more visible and actionable.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Why Do Pull Requests Go Silent? Uncovering the Barriers to Contribution Completion in Open-Source Code Review

Pull requests (PRs) underpin pull-based software development by enabling distributed code review and collaborative contribution in open-source projects. Yet many become inactive before integration and are eventually abandoned or closed, wasting contributor and maintainer effort. Although prior work has examined PR abandonment and review delays, less is known about the contribution types, discussion-level barriers, and post-stalling collaboration patterns associated with inactivity. We investigate which PR types most often stall, why inactivity occurs from authors' and reviewers' perspectives, and how stalling relates to later contributor and reviewer engagement. We analyzed 14,234 stalled PRs and 164,562 review comments from 19 popular GitHub repositories using stale-bot workflows. An LLM-based voting classifier categorized PRs by contribution type, while quantitative analysis was combined with qualitative coding of general and inline review discussions. Feature-enhancement and issue-fixing PRs formed the largest share, together exceeding 77% of classified stalled PRs. General comments linked stalling mainly to communication and coordination breakdowns, including missing interaction, delayed feedback, and unclear follow-up. Inline comments showed that inactivity does not always reflect disengagement: many PRs were blocked by technical or dependency issues, including failing checks, configuration problems, compatibility concerns, and environment mismatches. Only 39.56% of contributors later submitted another PR, and reviewer re-engagement with the same contributors was approximately 21%. PR inactivity is a socio-technical coordination problem involving communication, technical readiness, review ownership, and automation practices. We recommend type-aware triage, clearer review feedback, explicit ownership of next actions, CI blocker management, and cause-aware stale-bot interventions.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

MergeSE: Post-Hoc Model Merging for Software Engineering Tasks Without Retraining

Fine-tuned code models often behave as domain specialists and can degrade sharply under distribution shift: in our clone-detection setting, a model trained on same-language clones drops 71\% F1 on cross-language clones, while multi-task training falls to 0.151 F1 on unseen AI-generated clones. Our companion study shows that post-hoc model merging can address this fragmentation, achieving 93\% of multi-task performance without training data while generalizing 4$\times$ better to unseen clone types. However, no practical tool exists that lets SE researchers diagnose checkpoint compatibility, merge specialists, validate results on SE benchmarks, and export models for deployment. We present \textbf{MergeSE}, an open-source CLI and web tool for training-free model merging of HuggingFace encoder checkpoints. While motivated by OOD generalization in clone detection, MergeSE supports SE classification workflows more broadly through a built-in registry of nine task types, including vulnerability detection, defect prediction, and code-smell detection. MergeSE provides five operations: \textit{tasks}, \textit{inspect}, \textit{merge}, \textit{evaluate}, and \textit{export}. It supports five merging algorithms, including TIES, DARE-TIES, Wudi, PCB, and averaging; detects cross-task classification-head mismatches; produces seedable deterministic outputs; and includes bundled benchmark samples for smoke-test reproduction. A full merge of two 124M-parameter checkpoints completes in under 5 seconds on CPU. End-to-end validation confirms that MergeSE-produced checkpoints match reference implementations and recover cross-domain performance from domain-specific specialists. The tool is available online at https://mergese.usask.ca, and the development repository is at https://github.com/srlabUsask/MergeSE.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

A Unified Model for Cross-Domain Clone Detection via Model Merging

The growing diversity of code clone types, from syntactic copies to cross-language semantic clones to AI-generated duplicates, has created a fragmentation crisis in clone detection. Current deep learning detectors are domain specialists that degrade significantly outside their training distribution, with F1 drops exceeding 70% across domains. Deploying multiple specialized models is impractical, yet training a single cross-domain detector requires simultaneous access to all training data. To address this, we investigate model merging, a family of post-hoc techniques that operate solely on trained checkpoints. We evaluate parameter merging with five task-vector methods, architecture merging via greedy layer stitching, and cross-tokenizer alignment across four code models, three benchmarks, and twelve configurations. Same-base TIES merging creates effective cross-domain detectors, validated across two model families and three random seeds, reaching 0.865 combined F1 on UniXcoder, 93% of multi-task performance without any training data at the merging step. WUDI achieves the highest in-distribution combined F1 at 0.899, but TIES generalizes better to unseen AI-generated clones, making it our recommended method. Cross-base merging yields only marginal and high-variance gains across all five methods, indicating that task vector compatibility through a shared pre-trained base is the binding factor for effective merging. Merged detectors also outperform zero-shot code LLMs on GPTCloneBench at lower inference cost and generalize up to 4x better than multi-task training to unseen AI-generated clones, suggesting a trade-off between in-domain performance and OOD robustness. This work provides one of the first systematic empirical studies of model merging for software engineering and a practical recipe for building cross-domain clone detectors.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Evaluating LLMs on Java Code Snippet Adaptation Using a Mutation-Injection Framework

Background: Developers frequently reuse code by copying fragments and adapting them to fit new contexts. Existing benchmarks for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on code adaptation either rely on explicit step-by-step instructions, cover only narrow change types such as variable wiring, or operate exclusively at function-level granularity. It remains unknown how well LLMs can adapt code fragments without explicit edit guidance when the required changes are varied and controlled. Objective: We investigate instruction-free code snippet adaptation in which an LLM must adapt a code fragment to fit its target context without any explicit edit guidance. We study three dimensions: which adaptation types are hardest (RQ1), how performance scales with adaptation complexity (RQ2), and how much surrounding context the model needs (RQ3). Method: We will construct a dataset of Java code fragments from open-source repositories with strong test coverage and apply a taxonomy of adaptation operators, derived from empirical findings on how developers adapt copied code, using a mutation-injection framework. Working at the code fragment level and controlling the injected changes lets us know exactly what adaptations the model must perform. The unmutated fragment serves as a plausible reference for the changes the model needs to make. LLMs will be evaluated on instruction-free adaptation tasks across three context granularity levels. Correctness will be measured primarily via test-suite re-insertion, complemented by mutation-level inspection.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Breaking the Alphabet: Rethinking File Ordering in Code Review

Effective code review is central to maintaining software quality, yet there is limited research about how the ordering of changed files in Pull Requests (PRs) influences review effectiveness. Most popular code review tools default to alphabetical ordering, favoring predictability over contextual relevance. While prior studies examined how file position shapes reviewer attention, it remains unclear how such ordering influences cognitive load and perceived review thoroughness. This study presents the first large-scale survey of 1,355 professional developers across 182 widely used open-source projects to investigate how file ordering impacts review behavior, comprehension, and perceived effectiveness. Our mixed-methods analysis reveals that only 10.2% of reviewers consider alphabetical ordering optimal, underscoring a cognitive misalignment in their interpretation of code changes. Although some developers appreciate its predictability, more than half (57.6%) report that it increases context switching, disrupts logical reasoning, and contributes to review fatigue, and 63.9% expressed concern that the default ordering may cause them to miss bugs. We further identify key challenges in multi-file reviews and elicit developers' expectations for improved tooling, including dependency-aware grouping and customizable file ordering (requested by 66% of reviewers). These findings highlight the need for reviewer-centric interface designs that better align tool behavior with human cognition.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

A Metamorphic Testing Perspective on Knowledge Distillation for Language Models of Code: Does the Student Deeply Mimic the Teacher?

Transformer-based language models of code have achieved state-of-the-art performance across a wide range of software analytics tasks, but their practical deployment remains limited due to high computational costs, slow inference speeds, and significant environmental impact. To address these challenges, recent research has increasingly explored knowledge distillation as a method for compressing a large language model of code (the teacher) into a smaller model (the student) while maintaining performance. However, the degree to which a student model deeply mimics the predictive behavior and internal representations of its teacher remains largely unexplored, as current accuracy-based evaluation provides only a surface-level view of model quality and often fails to capture more profound discrepancies in behavioral fidelity between the teacher and student models. To address this gap, we empirically show that the student model often fails to deeply mimic the teacher model, resulting in up to 285% greater performance drop under adversarial attacks, which is not captured by traditional accuracy-based evaluation. Therefore, we propose MetaCompress, a metamorphic testing framework that systematically evaluates behavioral fidelity by comparing the outputs of teacher and student models under a set of behavior-preserving metamorphic relations. We evaluate MetaCompress on two widely studied tasks, using compressed versions of popular language models of code, obtained via three different knowledge distillation techniques: Compressor, AVATAR, and MORPH. The results show that MetaCompress identifies up to 62% behavioral discrepancies in student models, underscoring the need for behavioral fidelity evaluation within the knowledge distillation pipeline and establishing MetaCompress as a practical framework for testing compressed language models of code derived through knowledge distillation.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Carbon-Taxed Transformers: A Green Compression Pipeline for Overgrown Language Models

The accelerating adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) in software engineering (SE) has brought with it a silent crisis: unsustainable computational cost. While these models demonstrate remarkable capabilities in different SE tasks, they are unmanageably large, slow to deploy, memory-intensive, and carbon-heavy. This reality threatens not only the scalability and accessibility of AI-powered SE, but also its long-term environmental sustainability. The research challenge is clear: we must go beyond accuracy and address efficiency and environmental cost as first-class design constraints. To meet this challenge, we introduce Carbon-Taxed Transformers (CTT), a systematic multi-architectural compression principled pipeline ordering inspired by economic carbon taxation principles. Drawing from the economic concept of carbon pricing, CTT operationalizes a computational carbon tax that penalizes architectural inefficiencies and rewards deployment-ready compression. We evaluate CTT across three core SE tasks: code clone detection, code summarization, and code generation, with models spanning encoder-only, encoder-decoder, and decoder-only architecture. Our results show that CTT delivers on inference: (1) up to 49x memory reduction, (2) time reduction up to 8-10x for clone detection, up to 3x for summarization, and 4-7x for generation, (3) up to 81% reduction in CO2 emissions and (4) CTT retains around 98% accuracy on clone detection, around 89% on summarization, and up to 91% (textual metrics) and 68% (pass@1) for generation. Two ablation studies show that pipeline ordering and individual component contributions are both essential, providing empirical justification for CTT's design and effectiveness. This work establishes a viable path toward responsible AI in SE through aggressive yet performance-preserving compression.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Model Compression vs. Adversarial Robustness: An Empirical Study on Language Models for Code

Transformer-based language models for code have shown remarkable performance in various software analytics tasks, but their adoption is hindered by high computational costs, slow inference speeds, and substantial environmental impact. Model compression techniques such as pruning, quantization, and knowledge distillation have gained traction in addressing these challenges. However, the impact of these strategies on the robustness of compressed language models for code in adversarial scenarios remains poorly understood. Understanding how these compressed models behave under adversarial attacks is essential for their safe and effective deployment in real-world applications. To bridge this knowledge gap, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of how common compression strategies affect the adversarial robustness of compressed models. We assess the robustness of compressed versions of three widely used language models for code across three software analytics tasks, using six evaluation metrics and four commonly used classical adversarial attacks. Our findings indicate that compressed models generally maintain comparable performance to their uncompressed counterparts. However, when subjected to adversarial attacks, compressed models exhibit significantly reduced robustness. These results reveal a trade-off between model size reduction and adversarial robustness, underscoring the need for careful consideration when deploying compressed models in security-critical software applications. Our study highlights the need for further research into compression strategies that strike a balance between computational efficiency and adversarial robustness, which is essential for deploying reliable language models for code in real-world software applications.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

The State of Open Science in Software Engineering Research: A Case Study of ICSE Artifacts

Replication packages are crucial for enabling transparency, validation, and reuse in software engineering (SE) research. While artifact sharing is now a standard practice and even expected at premier SE venues such as ICSE, the practical usability of these replication packages remain underexplored. In particular, there is a marked lack of studies that comprehensively examine the executability and reproducibility of replication packages in SE research. In this paper, we aim to fill this gap by evaluating 100 replication packages published in ICSE proceedings over the past decade (2015 - 2024). We assess the (1) executability of the replication packages, (2) efforts and modifications required to execute them, (3) challenges that prevent executability, and (4) reproducibility of the original findings for those that are executable. We spent approximately 650 person-hours in total to execute the artifacts and reproduce the study findings. Our analysis shows that only 40 of the 100 evaluated artifacts were fully executable. Among these, 32.5% ran without any modification. However, even executable artifacts required varying levels of effort: 17.5% required low effort, while 82.5% required moderate to high effort to execute successfully. We identified five common types of modifications and 13 challenges that lead to execution failure, encompassing environmental, documentation, and structural issues. Among the executable artifacts, only 35% (14 out of 40) reproduced the original results. These findings highlight a notable gap between artifact availability, executability, and reproducibility. Our study proposes three actionable guidelines to improve the preparation, documentation, and review of research artifacts, thereby strengthening the rigor and sustainability of open science practices in SE research.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

MoEKD: Mixture-of-Experts Knowledge Distillation for Robust and High-Performing Compressed Code Models

Large language models for code have achieved strong performance across diverse software analytics tasks, yet their real-world adoption remains limited by high computational demands, slow inference speeds, significant energy consumption, and environmental impact. Knowledge distillation (KD) offers a practical solution by transferring knowledge from a large model to a smaller and more efficient model. Despite its effectiveness, recent studies show that models distilled from a single source often exhibit degraded adversarial robustness, even when robustness-aware distillation techniques are employed. These observations suggest a fundamental limitation of single-source distillation in simultaneously transferring high-quality and robust knowledge. To overcome this limitation, we propose Mixture of Experts Knowledge Distillation (MoEKD), a KD framework that leverages a Mixture of Experts (MoE) architecture to enable more effective and robust knowledge transfer from multiple specialized experts into a compact model. MoEKD decomposes the distillation process into expert and router training, aggregation of expert knowledge through a learned routing mechanism, and distillation from the aggregated knowledge. We evaluate MoEKD on the vulnerability detection task using CodeBERT and GraphCodeBERT models. Experimental results show that MoEKD not only improves adversarial robustness by up to 35.8%, but also enhances predictive performance by up to 13%, compared to state-of-the-art KD baselines, including Compressor and AVATAR. Furthermore, an ablation study demonstrates that aggregating expert knowledge enables ultra-compact models to maintain competitive performance even when their size is reduced by approximately half. Overall, these results highlight the effectiveness of multi-expert knowledge aggregation in addressing key limitations of existing single-source KD approaches.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Algorithm-Based Pipeline for Reliable and Intent-Preserving Code Translation with LLMs

Code translation, the automatic conversion of programs between languages, is a growing use case for Large Language Models (LLMs). However, direct one-shot translation often fails to preserve program intent, leading to errors in control flow, type handling, and I/O behavior. We propose an algorithm-based pipeline that introduces a language-neutral intermediate specification to capture these details before code generation. This study empirically evaluates the extent to which structured planning can improve translation accuracy and reliability relative to direct translation. We conduct an automated paired experiment - direct and algorithm-based to translate between Python and Java using five widely used LLMs on the Avatar and CodeNet datasets. For each combination (model, dataset, approach, and direction), we compile and execute the translated program and run the tests provided. We record compilation results, runtime behavior, timeouts (e.g., infinite loop), and test outcomes. We compute accuracy from these tests, counting a translation as correct only if it compiles, runs without exceptions or timeouts, and passes all tests. We then map every failed compile-time and runtime case to a unified, language-aware taxonomy and compare subtype frequencies between the direct and algorithm-based approaches. Overall, the Algorithm-based approach increases micro-average accuracy from 67.7% to 78.5% (10.8% increase). It eliminates lexical and token errors by 100%, reduces incomplete constructs by 72.7%, and structural and declaration issues by 61.1%. It also substantially lowers runtime dependency and entry-point failures by 78.4%. These results demonstrate that algorithm-based pipelines enable more reliable, intent-preserving code translation, providing a foundation for robust multilingual programming assistants.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Human-Aligned Enhancement of Programming Answers with LLMs Guided by User Feedback

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used to support software developers in tasks such as code generation, optimization, and documentation. However, their ability to improve existing programming answers in a human-like manner remains underexplored. On technical question-and-answer platforms such as Stack Overflow (SO), contributors often revise answers based on user comments that identify errors, inefficiencies, or missing explanations. Yet roughly one-third of this feedback is never addressed due to limited time, expertise, or visibility, leaving many answers incomplete or outdated. This study investigates whether LLMs can enhance programming answers by interpreting and incorporating comment-based feedback. We make four main contributions. First, we introduce ReSOlve, a benchmark consisting of 790 SO answers with associated comment threads, annotated for improvement-related and general feedback. Second, we evaluate four state-of-the-art LLMs on their ability to identify actionable concerns, finding that DeepSeek achieves the best balance between precision and recall. Third, we present AUTOCOMBAT, an LLM-powered tool that improves programming answers by jointly leveraging user comments and question context. Compared to human revised references, AUTOCOMBAT produces near-human quality improvements while preserving the original intent and significantly outperforming the baseline. Finally, a user study with 58 practitioners shows strong practical value, with 84.5 percent indicating they would adopt or recommend the tool. Overall, AUTOCOMBAT demonstrates the potential of scalable, feedback-driven answer refinement to improve the reliability and trustworthiness of technical knowledge platforms.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

An insight into the technical debt-fix trade off in software backporting

Maintaining software is an ongoing process that stretches beyond the initial release. Stable software versions continuously evolve to fix bugs, add improvements, address security issues, and ensure compatibility. This ongoing support involves Backporting, which means taking a fix or update from a newer version and applying it to an older version of the same software. As software versions evolve, new technical debt can arise during backport maintenance activities. This study examines the technical debt involved in fixing 105,396 commits from 31,076 backport sources across 87 repositories in three software ecosystems (Apache, Eclipse, and Python). The goal is to identify when and why new technical debt arises during backporting in stable source code. Our results indicate that approximately 4.3% of backports introduce new technical debt. Apache contributes the most absolute instances, while Python and Eclipse exhibit nearly three times higher debt-to-commit ratios than Apache. Feature migrations make older Apache releases debt-prone in the early phase, whereas Python and Eclipse releases tend to accumulate technical debt mostly during the middle phase of their release cycles. Additionally, developers who are inexperienced, under high workloads, or non-owners are more likely to introduce technical debt during backporting.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Can We Trust the AI Pair Programmer? Copilot for API Misuse Detection and Correction

API misuse introduces security vulnerabilities, system failures, and increases maintenance costs, all of which remain critical challenges in software development. Existing detection approaches rely on static analysis or machine learning-based tools that operate post-development, which delays defect resolution. Delayed defect resolution can significantly increase the cost and complexity of maintenance and negatively impact software reliability and user trust. AI-powered code assistants, such as GitHub Copilot, offer the potential for real-time API misuse detection within development environments. This study evaluates GitHub Copilot's effectiveness in identifying and correcting API misuse using MUBench, which provides a curated benchmark of misuse cases. We construct 740 misuse examples, manually and via AI-assisted variants, using correct usage patterns and misuse specifications. These examples and 147 correct usage cases are analyzed using Copilot integrated in Visual Studio Code. Copilot achieved a detection accuracy of 86.2%, precision of 91.2%, and recall of 92.4%. It performed strongly on common misuse types (e.g., missing-call, null-check) but struggled with compound or context-sensitive cases. Notably, Copilot successfully fixed over 95% of the misuses it identified. These findings highlight both the strengths and limitations of AI-driven coding assistants, positioning Copilot as a promising tool for real-time pair programming and detecting and fixing API misuses during software development.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Does Editing Improve Answer Quality on Stack Overflow? A Data-Driven Investigation

High-quality answers in technical Q&A platforms like Stack Overflow (SO) are crucial as they directly influence software development practices. Poor-quality answers can introduce inefficiencies, bugs, and security vulnerabilities, and thus increase maintenance costs and technical debt in production software. To improve content quality, SO allows collaborative editing, where users revise answers to enhance clarity, correctness, and formatting. Several studies have examined rejected edits and identified the causes of rejection. However, prior research has not systematically assessed whether accepted edits enhance key quality dimensions. While one study investigated the impact of edits on C/C++ vulnerabilities, broader quality aspects remain unexplored. In this study, we analyze 94,994 Python-related answers that have at least one accepted edit to determine whether edits improve (1) semantic relevance, (2) code usability, (3) code complexity, (4) security vulnerabilities, (5) code optimization, and (6) readability. Our findings show both positive and negative effects of edits. While 53.3% of edits improve how well answers match questions, 38.1% make them less relevant. Some previously broken code (9%) becomes executable, yet working code (14.7%) turns non-parsable after edits. Many edits increase complexity (32.3%), making code harder to maintain. Instead of fixing security issues, 20.5% of edits introduce additional issues. Even though 51.0% of edits optimize performance, execution time still increases overall. Readability also suffers, as 49.7% of edits make code harder to read. This study highlights the inconsistencies in editing outcomes and provides insights into how edits impact software maintainability, security, and efficiency that might caution users and moderators and help future improvements in collaborative editing systems.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Investigating Adversarial Attacks in Software Analytics via Machine Learning Explainability

With the recent advancements in machine learning (ML), numerous ML-based approaches have been extensively applied in software analytics tasks to streamline software development and maintenance processes. Nevertheless, studies indicate that despite their potential usefulness, ML models are vulnerable to adversarial attacks, which may result in significant monetary losses in these processes. As a result, the ML models' robustness against adversarial attacks must be assessed before they are deployed in software analytics tasks. Despite several techniques being available for adversarial attacks in software analytics tasks, exploring adversarial attacks using ML explainability is largely unexplored. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the relationship between ML explainability and adversarial attacks to measure the robustness of ML models in software analytics tasks. In addition, unlike most existing attacks that directly perturb input-space, our attack approach focuses on perturbing feature-space. Our extensive experiments, involving six datasets, three ML explainability techniques, and seven ML models, demonstrate that ML explainability can be used to conduct successful adversarial attacks on ML models in software analytics tasks. This is achieved by modifying only the top 1-3 important features identified by ML explainability techniques. Consequently, the ML models under attack fail to accurately predict up to 86.6% of instances that were correctly predicted before adversarial attacks, indicating the models' low robustness against such attacks. Finally, our proposed technique demonstrates promising results compared to four state-of-the-art adversarial attack techniques targeting tabular data.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

An Empirical Investigation on the Challenges in Scientific Workflow Systems Development

Scientific Workflow Systems (SWSs) are advanced software frameworks that drive modern research by orchestrating complex computational tasks and managing extensive data pipelines. These systems offer a range of essential features, including modularity, abstraction, interoperability, workflow composition tools, resource management, error handling, and comprehensive documentation. Utilizing these frameworks accelerates the development of scientific computing, resulting in more efficient and reproducible research outcomes. However, developing a user-friendly, efficient, and adaptable SWS poses several challenges. This study explores these challenges through an in-depth analysis of interactions on Stack Overflow (SO) and GitHub, key platforms where developers and researchers discuss and resolve issues. In particular, we leverage topic modeling (BERTopic) to understand the topics SWSs developers discuss on these platforms. We identified 10 topics developers discuss on SO (e.g., Workflow Creation and Scheduling, Data Structures and Operations, Workflow Execution) and found that workflow execution is the most challenging. By analyzing GitHub issues, we identified 13 topics (e.g., Errors and Bug Fixing, Documentation, Dependencies) and discovered that data structures and operations is the most difficult. We also found common topics between SO and GitHub, such as data structures and operations, task management, and workflow scheduling. Additionally, we categorized each topic by type (How, Why, What, and Others). We observed that the How type consistently dominates across all topics, indicating a need for procedural guidance among developers. The dominance of the How type is also evident in domains like Chatbots and Mobile development. Our study will guide future research in proposing tools and techniques to help the community overcome the challenges developers face when developing SWSs.

cs.SE↗