Related papers: "Silent Is Not Actually Silent": An Investigation of Toxicity on Bug Report Discussion

"Silent Is Not Actually Silent": An Investigation of Toxicity on Bug Report Discussion

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.10072v1
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 05:39:29 GMT
Title: "Silent Is Not Actually Silent": An Investigation of Toxicity on Bug Report Discussion
Authors: Mia Mohammad Imran, Jaydeb Sarker,
Abstract summary: This study explores toxicity in GitHub bug reports through a qualitative analysis of 203 bug threads, including 81 toxic ones.<n>Our findings reveal that toxicity frequently arises from misaligned perceptions of bug severity and priority, unresolved frustrations with tools, and lapses in professional communication.<n>Our preliminary findings offer actionable recommendations to improve bug resolution by mitigating toxicity.
Score: 0.0
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract: Toxicity in bug report discussions poses significant challenges to the collaborative dynamics of open-source software development. Bug reports are crucial for identifying and resolving defects, yet their inherently problem-focused nature and emotionally charged context make them susceptible to toxic interactions. This study explores toxicity in GitHub bug reports through a qualitative analysis of 203 bug threads, including 81 toxic ones. Our findings reveal that toxicity frequently arises from misaligned perceptions of bug severity and priority, unresolved frustrations with tools, and lapses in professional communication. These toxic interactions not only derail productive discussions but also reduce the likelihood of actionable outcomes, such as linking issues with pull requests. Our preliminary findings offer actionable recommendations to improve bug resolution by mitigating toxicity.

Related papers

Aligned Probing: Relating Toxic Behavior and Model Internals [66.49887503194101]
We introduce aligned probing, a novel interpretability framework that aligns the behavior of language models (LMs) Using this framework, we examine over 20 OLMo, Llama, and Mistral models, bridging behavioral and internal perspectives for toxicity for the first time. Our results show that LMs strongly encode information about the toxicity level of inputs and subsequent outputs, particularly in lower layers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-03-17T17:23:50Z)
The Landscape of Toxicity: An Empirical Investigation of Toxicity on GitHub [3.0586855806896054]
profanity is the most frequent toxicity on GitHub, followed by trolling and insults.<n>Corporate-sponsored projects are less toxic, but gaming projects are seven times more toxic than non-gaming ones.<n> OSS contributors who have authored toxic comments in the past are significantly more likely to repeat such behavior.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-12T09:24:59Z)
Analyzing Toxicity in Open Source Software Communications Using Psycholinguistics and Moral Foundations Theory [5.03553492616371]
This paper investigates a machine learning-based approach for the automatic detection of toxic communications in Open Source Software (OSS)<n>We leverage psycholinguistic lexicons, and Moral Foundations Theory to analyze toxicity in two types of OSS communication channels; issue comments and code reviews.<n>Using moral values as features is more effective than linguistic cues, resulting in 67.50% F1-measure in identifying toxic instances in code review data and 64.83% in issue comments.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-12-17T17:52:00Z)
Exploring ChatGPT for Toxicity Detection in GitHub [5.003898791753481]
The prevalence of negative discourse, often manifested as toxic comments, poses significant challenges to developer well-being and productivity. To identify such negativity in project communications, automated toxicity detection models are necessary. To train these models effectively, we need large software engineering-specific toxicity datasets.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-20T15:23:00Z)
Unveiling the Implicit Toxicity in Large Language Models [77.90933074675543]
The open-endedness of large language models (LLMs) combined with their impressive capabilities may lead to new safety issues when being exploited for malicious use. We show that LLMs can generate diverse implicit toxic outputs that are exceptionally difficult to detect via simply zero-shot prompting. We propose a reinforcement learning (RL) based attacking method to further induce the implicit toxicity in LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-29T06:42:36Z)
Comprehensive Assessment of Toxicity in ChatGPT [49.71090497696024]
We evaluate the toxicity in ChatGPT by utilizing instruction-tuning datasets. prompts in creative writing tasks can be 2x more likely to elicit toxic responses. Certain deliberately toxic prompts, designed in earlier studies, no longer yield harmful responses.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-03T14:37:53Z)
Exploring Moral Principles Exhibited in OSS: A Case Study on GitHub Heated Issues [5.659436621527968]
We analyze toxic communications in GitHub issue threads to identify and understand five types of moral principles exhibited in text. Preliminary findings suggest a possible link between moral principles and toxic comments in OSS communications.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-28T15:42:10Z)
Using Developer Discussions to Guide Fixing Bugs in Software [51.00904399653609]
We propose using bug report discussions, which are available before the task is performed and are also naturally occurring, avoiding the need for additional information from developers. We demonstrate that various forms of natural language context derived from such discussions can aid bug-fixing, even leading to improved performance over using commit messages corresponding to the oracle bug-fixing commits.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-11T16:37:33Z)
Silent Bugs in Deep Learning Frameworks: An Empirical Study of Keras and TensorFlow [13.260758930014154]
Deep Learning (DL) frameworks are now widely used, simplifying the creation of complex models as well as their integration to various applications even to non DL experts. This paper deals with the subcategory of bugs named silent bugs: they lead to wrong behavior but they do not cause system crashes or hangs, nor show an error message to the user. This paper presents the first empirical study of Keras and silent bugs, and their impact on users' programs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-12-26T04:18:57Z)
Toxicity Detection can be Sensitive to the Conversational Context [64.28043776806213]
We construct and publicly release a dataset of 10,000 posts with two kinds of toxicity labels. We introduce a new task, context sensitivity estimation, which aims to identify posts whose perceived toxicity changes if the context is also considered.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-11-19T13:57:26Z)
Mitigating Biases in Toxic Language Detection through Invariant Rationalization [70.36701068616367]
biases toward some attributes, including gender, race, and dialect, exist in most training datasets for toxicity detection. We propose to use invariant rationalization (InvRat), a game-theoretic framework consisting of a rationale generator and a predictor, to rule out the spurious correlation of certain syntactic patterns. Our method yields lower false positive rate in both lexical and dialectal attributes than previous debiasing methods.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-14T08:49:52Z)
Challenges in Automated Debiasing for Toxic Language Detection [81.04406231100323]
Biased associations have been a challenge in the development of classifiers for detecting toxic language. We investigate recently introduced debiasing methods for text classification datasets and models, as applied to toxic language detection. Our focus is on lexical (e.g., swear words, slurs, identity mentions) and dialectal markers (specifically African American English)
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-01-29T22:03:17Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.