Can Issues Reported at Stack Overflow Questions be Reproduced? An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software developers often look for solutions to their code level problems at Stack Overflow. Hence, they frequently submit their questions with sample code segments and issue descriptions. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to reproduce their reported issues from such code segments. This phenomenon might prevent their questions from getting prompt and appropriate solutions. In this paper, we report an exploratory study on the reproducibility of the issues discussed in 400 questions of Stack Overflow. In particular, we parse, compile, execute and even carefully examine the code segments from these questions, spent a total of 200 man hours, and then attempt to reproduce their programming issues. The outcomes of our study are two-fold. First, we find that 68% of the code segments require minor and major modifications in order to reproduce the issues reported by the developers. On the contrary, 22% code segments completely fail to reproduce the issues. We also carefully investigate why these issues could not be reproduced and then provide evidence-based guidelines for writing effective code examples for Stack Overflow questions. Second, we investigate the correlation between issue reproducibility status (of questions) and corresponding answer meta-data such as the presence of an accepted answer. According to our analysis, a question with reproducible issues has at least three times higher chance of receiving an accepted answer than the question with irreproducible issues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.068 | 0.381 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".