Exploring the Jupyter Ecosystem: An Empirical Study of Bugs and Vulnerabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Jupyter notebooks are one of the main tools used by data scientists. Notebooks include features (configuration scripts, markdown, images, etc.) that make them challenging to analyze compared to traditional software. As a result, existing software engineering models, tools, and studies do not capture the uniqueness of Notebook's behavior. Aims. This paper aims to provide a large-scale empirical study of bugs and vulnerabilities in the Notebook ecosystem. Method. We collected and analyzed a large dataset of Notebooks from two major platforms. Our methodology involved quantitative analyses of notebook characteristics (such as complexity metrics, contributor activity, and documentation) to identify factors correlated with bugs. Additionally, we conducted a qualitative study using grounded theory to categorize notebook bugs, resulting in a comprehensive bug taxonomy. Finally, we analyzed security-related commits and vulnerability reports to assess risks associated with Notebook deployment frameworks. Results. Our findings highlight that configuration issues are among the most common bugs in notebook documents, followed by incorrect API usage. Finally, we explore common vulnerabilities associated with popular deployment frameworks to better understand risks associated with Notebook development. Conclusions. This work highlights that notebooks are less wellsupported than traditional software, resulting in more complex code, misconfiguration, and poor maintenance.
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 | 0.009 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".