Towards Better Requirements from the Crowd: Developer Engagement with Feature Requests in Open Source Software

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13553v1
• Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 22:04:29 GMT
• Title: Towards Better Requirements from the Crowd: Developer Engagement with Feature Requests in Open Source Software
• Authors: Pragyan K C, Rambod Ghandiparsi, Thomas Herron, John Heaps, Mitra Bokaei Hosseini,
• Abstract summary: This study investigates how feature requests are prone to NL defects (i.e. ambiguous or incomplete) and the conversational dynamics of clarification in open-source software development.<n>Our findings suggest that feature requests published on the OSS platforms do possess ambiguity and incompleteness, and in some cases, both.<n>When clarification occurs, it emphasizes understanding user intent/goal and feasibility, rather than technical details.
• Score: 0.2748831616311481
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As user demands evolve, effectively incorporating feature requests is crucial for maintaining software relevance and user satisfaction. Feature requests, typically expressed in natural language, often suffer from ambiguity or incomplete information due to communication gaps or the requester's limited technical expertise. These issues can lead to misinterpretation, faulty implementation, and reduced software quality. While seeking clarification from requesters is a common strategy to mitigate these risks, little is known about how developers engage in this clarification process in practice-how they formulate clarifying questions, seek technical or contextual details, align on goals and use cases, or decide to close requests without attempting clarification. This study investigates how feature requests are prone to NL defects (i.e. ambiguous or incomplete) and the conversational dynamics of clarification in open-source software (OSS) development, aiming to understand how developers handle ambiguous or incomplete feature requests. Our findings suggest that feature requests published on the OSS platforms do possess ambiguity and incompleteness, and in some cases, both. We also find that explicit clarification for the resolution of these defects is uncommon; developers usually focus on aligning with project goals rather than resolving unclear text. When clarification occurs, it emphasizes understanding user intent/goal and feasibility, rather than technical details. By characterizing the dynamics of clarification in open-source issue trackers, this work identifies patterns that can improve user-developer collaboration and inform best practices for handling feature requests effectively.

Related papers

• Teaching Language Models To Gather Information Proactively [53.85419549904644]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly expected to function as collaborative partners.<n>In this work, we introduce a new task paradigm: proactive information gathering.<n>We design a scalable framework that generates partially specified, real-world tasks, masking key information.<n>Within this setup, our core innovation is a reinforcement finetuning strategy that rewards questions that elicit genuinely new, implicit user information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T23:50:09Z)
• Demystifying Feature Requests: Leveraging LLMs to Refine Feature Requests in Open-Source Software [0.2748831616311481]
  This paper proposes a novel approach leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) to detect and refine NL defects in feature requests.<n>Our approach automates the identification of ambiguous and incomplete requests and generates clarification questions (CQs) to enhance their usefulness for developers.<n>In addition, we conduct interviews with GitHub developers to gain deeper insights into their perceptions of NL defects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T22:16:13Z)
• Epistemic Alignment: A Mediating Framework for User-LLM Knowledge Delivery [17.23286832909591]
  We propose a set of ten challenges in transmission of knowledge derived from the philosophical literature.<n>We find users develop workarounds to address each of the challenges.<n>For AI developers, the Epistemic Alignment Framework offers concrete guidance for supporting diverse approaches to knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T21:38:12Z)
• Interactive Agents to Overcome Ambiguity in Software Engineering [61.40183840499932]
  AI agents are increasingly being deployed to automate tasks, often based on ambiguous and underspecified user instructions.<n>Making unwarranted assumptions and failing to ask clarifying questions can lead to suboptimal outcomes.<n>We study the ability of LLM agents to handle ambiguous instructions in interactive code generation settings by evaluating proprietary and open-weight models on their performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T17:12:26Z)
• From Bugs to Benefits: Improving User Stories by Leveraging Crowd Knowledge with CrUISE-AC [0.0]
  We present CrUISE-AC as a fully automated method that investigates issues and generates non-trivial additional acceptance criteria for a given user story.<n>Our evaluation shows that 80-82% of the generated acceptance criteria add relevant requirements to the user stories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-25T11:44:24Z)
• Towards Detecting Prompt Knowledge Gaps for Improved LLM-guided Issue Resolution [3.768737590492549]
  We analyze 433 developer-ChatGPT conversations within GitHub issue threads to examine the impact of prompt knowledge gaps and conversation styles on issue resolution.<n>We find that ineffective conversations contain knowledge gaps in 44.6% of prompts, compared to only 12.6% in effective ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-20T19:41:42Z)
• CRAT: A Multi-Agent Framework for Causality-Enhanced Reflective and Retrieval-Augmented Translation with Large Language Models [59.8529196670565]
  CRAT is a novel multi-agent translation framework that leverages RAG and causality-enhanced self-reflection to address translation challenges. Our results show that CRAT significantly improves translation accuracy, particularly in handling context-sensitive terms and emerging vocabulary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T14:29:11Z)
• Learning to Filter Context for Retrieval-Augmented Generation [75.18946584853316]
  Generation models are required to generate outputs given partially or entirely irrelevant passages. FILCO identifies useful context based on lexical and information-theoretic approaches. It trains context filtering models that can filter retrieved contexts at test time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T18:41:54Z)
• From Chaos to Clarity: Claim Normalization to Empower Fact-Checking [57.024192702939736]
  Claim Normalization (aka ClaimNorm) aims to decompose complex and noisy social media posts into more straightforward and understandable forms. We propose CACN, a pioneering approach that leverages chain-of-thought and claim check-worthiness estimation. Our experiments demonstrate that CACN outperforms several baselines across various evaluation measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-22T16:07:06Z)
• Competency Problems: On Finding and Removing Artifacts in Language Data [50.09608320112584]
  We argue that for complex language understanding tasks, all simple feature correlations are spurious. We theoretically analyze the difficulty of creating data for competency problems when human bias is taken into account.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-17T21:34:10Z)
• Natural language technology and query expansion: issues, state-of-the-art and perspectives [0.0]
  Linguistic characteristics that cause ambiguity and misinterpretation of queries as well as additional factors affect the users ability to accurately represent their information needs. We lay down the anatomy of a generic linguistic based query expansion framework and propose its module-based decomposition. For each of the modules we review the state-of-the-art solutions in the literature and categorized under the light of the techniques used.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-23T11:39:07Z)

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

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.