Automatic Detection and Analysis of Technical Debts in Peer-Review Documentation of R Packages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technical debt (TD) is a metaphor for code-related problems that arise as a result of prioritizing speedy delivery over perfect code. Given that the reduction of TDs can have long-term positive impact in the software engineering life-cycle (SDLC), TDs are studied extensively in the literature. However, very few of the existing research focused on the technical debts of R programming language despite its popularity and usage. Recent research by Codabux et al. [21] finds that <tex>$R$</tex> packages can have 10 diverse TD types analyzing peer-review documentation. However, the findings are based on the manual analysis of a small sample of R package review comments. In this paper, we develop a suite of Machine Learning (ML) classifiers to detect the 10 TDs automatically. The best performing classifier is based on the deep ML model BERT, which achieves F1-scores of 0.71 - 0.91. We then apply the trained BERT models on all available peer-review issue comments from two platforms, rOpenSci and BioConductor (13.5K review comments coming from a total of 1297 R packages). We conduct an empirical study on the prevalence and evolution of 10 TDs in the two R platforms. We discovered documentation debt is the most prevalent among all types of TD, and it is also expanding rapidly. We also find that R packages of generic platform (i.e. rOpenSci) are more prone to TD compared to domain-specific platform (i.e. BioConductor). Our empirical study findings can guide future improvements opportunities in R package documentation. Our ML models can be used to automatically monitor the prevalence and evolution of TDs in R package documentation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".