Breaking-Good: Explaining Breaking Dependency Updates with Build Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dependency updates often cause compilation errors when new dependency versions introduce changes that are incompatible with existing client code. Fixing breaking dependency updates is notoriously hard, as their root cause can be hidden deep in the dependency tree. We present Breaking-Good, a tool that automatically generates explanations for breaking updates. Breaking-Good provides a detailed categorization of compilation errors, identifying several factors related to changes in direct and indirect dependencies, incompatibilities between Java versions, and client-specific configuration. With a blended analysis of log and dependency trees, Breaking-Good generates detailed explanations for each breaking update. These explanations help developers understand the causes of the breaking update, and suggest possible actions to fix the breakage. We evaluate Breaking-Good on 243 real-world breaking dependency updates. Our results indicate that Breaking-Good accurately identifies root causes and generates automatic explanations for 70 % of these breaking updates. Our user study demonstrates that the generated explanations help developers. Breaking-Good is the first technique that automatically identifies the causes of a breaking dependency update and explains the breakage accordingly.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it