Understanding Usefulness in Developer Explanations on Stack Overflow

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.14865v1
• Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 10:50:43 GMT
• Title: Understanding Usefulness in Developer Explanations on Stack Overflow
• Authors: Martin Obaidi, Kushtrim Qengaj, Hannah Deters, Jakob Droste, Marc Herrmann, Kurt Schneider, Jil Klünder,
• Abstract summary: This study provides an empirical account of what drives perceived usefulness in developer explanations.<n>It offers implications for how developers and RE practitioners can craft clearer and more effective explanations.
• Score: 2.153604655925499
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Explanations are essential in software engineering (SE) and requirements communication, helping stakeholders clarify ambiguities, justify design choices, and build shared understanding. Online Q&A forums such as Stack Overflow provide large-scale settings where such explanations are produced and evaluated, offering valuable insights into what makes them effective. While prior work has explored answer acceptance and voting behavior, little is known about which specific features make explanations genuinely useful. The relative influence of structural, contextual, and linguistic factors, such as content richness, timing, and sentiment, remains unclear. We analyzed 3,323 questions and 59,398 answers from Stack Overflow, combining text analysis and statistical modeling to examine how explanation attributes relate to perceived usefulness (normalized upvotes). Structural and contextual factors, especially explanation length, code inclusion, timing, and author reputation, show small to moderate positive effects. Sentiment polarity has negligible influence, suggesting that clarity and substance outweigh tone in technical communication. This study provides an empirical account of what drives perceived usefulness in developer explanations. It contributes methodological transparency through open data and replication materials, and conceptual insight by relating observed communication patterns to principles of requirements communication. The findings offer evidence-based implications for how developers and RE practitioners can craft clearer and more effective explanations, potentially supporting fairer communication in both open and organizational contexts. From an RE perspective, these determinants can be interpreted as practical signals for ambiguity reduction and rationale articulation in day-to-day requirements communication.

Related papers

• When Efficient Communication Explains Convexity [2.1771821757134915]
  The present paper asks what factors are responsible for successful explanations in terms of efficient communication.<n>We first demonstrate and analyze a correlation between optimality in the IB sense and a novel generalization of convexity to this setting.<n>We find that the convexity of the communicative need distribution plays an especially important role.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T21:20:45Z)
• COMMUNITYNOTES: A Dataset for Exploring the Helpfulness of Fact-Checking Explanations [89.37527535663433]
  We present a large-scale dataset of 104k posts with user-provided notes and helpfulness labels.<n>We propose a framework that automatically generates and improves reason definitions via automatic prompt optimization.<n>Our experiments show that the optimized definitions can improve both helpfulness and reason prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-28T05:28:47Z)
• FIRE: Faithful Interpretable Recommendation Explanations [2.6499018693213316]
  Natural language explanations in recommender systems are often framed as a review generation task.<n>Fire is a lightweight and interpretable framework that combines SHAP-based feature attribution with structured, prompt-driven language generation.<n>Our results demonstrate that FIRE not only achieves competitive recommendation accuracy but also significantly improves explanation quality along critical dimensions such as alignment, structure, and faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T10:11:02Z)
• How Does Users' App Knowledge Influence the Preferred Level of Detail and Format of Software Explanations? [2.423517761302909]
  This study investigates factors influencing users' preferred level of detail and the form of an explanation in software.<n>Results indicate that users prefer moderately detailed explanations in short text formats.<n>Our results show that explanation preferences are weakly influenced by app-specific knowledge but shaped by demographic and psychological factors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T15:18:04Z)
• Harnessing Large Language Models for Knowledge Graph Question Answering via Adaptive Multi-Aspect Retrieval-Augmentation [81.18701211912779]
  We introduce an Adaptive Multi-Aspect Retrieval-augmented over KGs (Amar) framework.<n>This method retrieves knowledge including entities, relations, and subgraphs, and converts each piece of retrieved text into prompt embeddings.<n>Our method has achieved state-of-the-art performance on two common datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-24T16:38:04Z)
• Context-faithful Prompting for Large Language Models [51.194410884263135]
  Large language models (LLMs) encode parametric knowledge about world facts. Their reliance on parametric knowledge may cause them to overlook contextual cues, leading to incorrect predictions in context-sensitive NLP tasks. We assess and enhance LLMs' contextual faithfulness in two aspects: knowledge conflict and prediction with abstention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-20T17:54:58Z)
• Complementary Explanations for Effective In-Context Learning [77.83124315634386]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable capabilities in learning from explanations in prompts. This work aims to better understand the mechanisms by which explanations are used for in-context learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-25T04:40:47Z)
• REX: Reasoning-aware and Grounded Explanation [30.392986232906107]
  We develop a new type of multi-modal explanations that explain the decisions by traversing the reasoning process and grounding keywords in the images. Second, we identify the critical need to tightly couple important components across the visual and textual modalities for explaining the decisions. Third, we propose a novel explanation generation method that explicitly models the pairwise correspondence between words and regions of interest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-11T17:28:42Z)
• Human Interpretation of Saliency-based Explanation Over Text [65.29015910991261]
  We study saliency-based explanations over textual data. We find that people often mis-interpret the explanations. We propose a method to adjust saliencies based on model estimates of over- and under-perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T15:20:32Z)
• Knowledge Graph Augmented Network Towards Multiview Representation Learning for Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis [96.53859361560505]
  We propose a knowledge graph augmented network (KGAN) to incorporate external knowledge with explicitly syntactic and contextual information. KGAN captures the sentiment feature representations from multiple perspectives, i.e., context-, syntax- and knowledge-based. Experiments on three popular ABSA benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of our KGAN.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-13T08:25:53Z)
• 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.