Characterizing and Mitigating Self-Admitted Technical Debt in Build Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technical Debt is a metaphor used to describe the situation in which long-term software artifact quality is traded for short-term goals in software projects. In recent years, the concept of self-admitted technical debt (SATD) was proposed, which focuses on debt that is intentionally introduced and described by developers. Although prior work has made important observations about admitted technical debt in source code, little is known about SATD in build systems. In this paper, we set out to better understand the characteristics of SATD in build systems. To do so, through a qualitative analysis of 500 SATD comments in the Maven build system of 291 projects, we characterize SATD by location and rationale (reason and purpose). Our results show that limitations in tools and libraries, and complexities of dependency management are the most frequent causes, accounting for 50% and 24% of the comments. We also find that developers often document SATD as issues to be fixed later. As a first step towards the automatic detection of SATD rationale, we train classifiers to detect the two most frequently occurring reasons and the four most frequently occurring purposes of SATD in the content of comments in Maven build systems. The classifier performance is promising, achieving an F1-score of 0.71–0.79. Finally, within 16 identified ‘ready-to-be-addressed’ SATD instances, the three SATD submitted by pull requests and the five SATD submitted by issue reports were resolved after developers were made aware. Our work presents the first step towards understanding technical debt in build systems and opens up avenues for future work, such as tool support to track and manage SATD backlogs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".