An Empirical Study on the Effectiveness of Large Language Models for SATD Identification and Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-Admitted Technical Debt (SATD), a concept highlighting sub-optimal choices in software development documented in code comments or other project resources, poses challenges in the maintainability and evolution of software systems. Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant effectiveness across a broad range of software tasks, especially in software text generation tasks. Nonetheless, their effectiveness in tasks related to SATD is still under-researched. In this paper, we investigate the efficacy of LLMs in both identification and classification of SATD. For both tasks, we investigate the performance gain from using more recent LLMs, specifically the Flan-T5 family, across different common usage settings. Our results demonstrate that for SATD identification, all fine-tuned LLMs outperform the best existing non-LLM baseline, i.e., the CNN model, with a 4.4% to 7.2% improvement in F1 score. In the SATD classification task, while our largest fine-tuned model, Flan-T5-XL, still led in performance, the CNN model exhibited competitive results, even surpassing four of six LLMs. We also found that the largest Flan-T5 model, i.e., Flan-T5-XXL, when used with a zero-shot in-context learning (ICL) approach for SATD identification, provides competitive results with traditional approaches but performs 6.4% to 9.2% worse than fine-tuned LLMs. For SATD classification, few-shot ICL approach, incorporating examples and category descriptions in prompts, outperforms the zero-shot approach and even surpasses the fine-tuned smaller Flan-T5 models. Moreover, our experiments demonstrate that incorporating contextual information, such as surrounding code, into the SATD classification task enables larger fine-tuned LLMs to improve their performance.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".