BOMs Away! Inside the Minds of Stakeholders: A Comprehensive Study of Bills of Materials for Software Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software Bills of Materials (SBOMs) have emerged as tools to facilitate the management of software dependencies, vulnerabilities, licenses, and the supply chain. While significant effort has been devoted to increasing SBOM awareness and developing SBOM formats and tools, recent studies have shown that SBOMs are still an early technology not yet adequately adopted in practice. Expanding on previous research, this paper reports a comprehensive study that investigates the current challenges stakeholders encounter when creating and using SBOMs. The study surveyed 138 practitioners belonging to five stakeholder groups (practitioners familiar with SBOMs, members of critical open source projects, AI/ML, cyberphysical systems, and legal practitioners) using differentiated questionnaires, and interviewed 8 survey respondents to gather further insights about their experience. We identified 12 major challenges facing the creation and use of SBOMs, including those related to the SBOM content, deficiencies in SBOM tools, SBOM maintenance and verification, and domain-specific challenges. We propose and discuss 4 actionable solutions to the identified challenges and present the major avenues for future research and development.
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 | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".