Automated Extraction and Analysis of Developer's Rationale in Open Source Software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contributors to open source software must deeply understand a project’s history to make coherent decisions which do not conflict with past reasoning. However, inspecting all related changes to a proposed contribution requires intensive manual effort, and previous research has not yet produced an automated mechanism to expose and analyze these conflicts. In this article, we propose such an automated approach for rationale analyses, based on an instantiation of Kantara, an existing high-level rationale extraction and management architecture. Our implementation leverages pre-trained models and Large Language Models, and includes structure-based mechanisms to detect reasoning conflicts and problems which could cause design erosion in a project over time. We show the feasibility of our extraction and analysis approach using the OOM-Killer module of the Linux Kernel project, and investigate the approach’s generalization to five other highly active open source projects. The results confirm that our automated approach can support rationale analyses with reasonable performance, by finding interesting relationships and to detect potential conflicts and reasoning problems. We also show the effectiveness of the automated extraction of decision and rationale sentences and the prospects for generalizing this to other open source projects. This automated approach could therefore be used by open source software developers to proactively address hidden issues and to ensure that new changes do not conflict with past decisions.
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 | 0.012 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".