Negativity in self-admitted technical debt: how sentiment influences prioritization
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
Abstract Self-Admitted Technical Debt, or SATD, is a self-admission of technical debt present in a software system. The presence of SATD in software systems negatively affects developers, therefore, managing and addressing SATD is crucial for software engineering. To effectively manage SATD, developers need to estimate its priority and assess the effort required to fix the described technical debt. About a quarter of descriptions of SATD in software systems express some form of negativity or negative emotions when describing technical debt. In this paper, we report on an experiment conducted with 59 respondents to study whether negativity expressed in the description of SATD actually affects the prioritization of SATD. The respondents are a mix of professional developers and students, and in the experiment, we asked participants to prioritize four vignettes: two expressing negativity and two expressing neutral sentiment. To ensure the vignettes were realistic, they were based on existing SATD extracted from a dataset. We find that negativity causes between one-third and half of developers to prioritize SATD in which negativity is expressed as having more priority. Developers affected by negativity when prioritizing SATD are twice as likely to increase their estimation of urgency and 1.5 times as likely to increase their estimation of importance and effort for SATD compared to the likelihood of decreasing these prioritization scores. Our findings show how developers actively use negativity in SATD to determine how urgently a particular instance of technical debt should be addressed. However, our study also describes a gap in the actions and belief of developers. Even if 33% to 50% use negativity to prioritize SATD, 67% of developers believe that using negativity as a proxy for priority is unacceptable. Therefore, we would not recommend using negativity as a proxy for priority. However, we also recognize it might be unavoidable that negativity is expressed by developers to describe technical debt.
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 | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it