The Replication Assessment Problem in Software Engineering

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.13815v1
• Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 13:24:55 GMT
• Title: The Replication Assessment Problem in Software Engineering
• Abstract summary: We document how replication study outcomes are currently assessed in empirical software engineering.<n>We identify problems arising from inconsistent criteria and propose a principled framework for meaningful evaluation.
• Score: 1.0374041927838908
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Background: Replication studies in software engineering are increasingly common, yet their interpretation remains uncertain and inconsistent because assessments frequently rely on loosely defined or ad hoc criteria. Aim: This study aims to document how replication study outcomes are currently assessed in empirical software engineering, identify problems arising from inconsistent criteria and propose a principled framework for meaningful evaluation. Method: We conducted a systematic review of replication studies, with the search covering recent empirical software engineering replications (2021--2025). For each study, we extracted the criteria used to assess replication outcomes and analysed these for heterogeneity, logical consistency, and alignment with established statistical principles. Results: A total of 10 replication studies were located. The analysis reveals substantial heterogeneity in assessment practices, with contradictory criteria applied to similar data, limited acknowledgement of measurement uncertainty, and an absence of shared standards. We propose a principled framework grounded in statistical, methodological, and measurement considerations, and demonstrate its application through worked examples. Conclusions: Adopting consistent and transparent assessment principles would reduce ambiguity, improve comparability, and support more reliable evidence accumulation in software engineering replication research.

Related papers

• To Compare, or Not to Compare: On Methodological Practices in Evaluating Social Bias [61.40435736418359]
  We introduce a unified framework that standardizes heterogeneous benchmarks to contrast isolated demographic assessments with forced-choice comparative settings.<n>We show that comparative settings act as aggressive catalysts for latent discrimination, a shift primarily driven by underspecified contexts.<n>Finally, we demonstrate that this comparative prejudice is a generalized phenomenon that scales positively with model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T13:53:50Z)
• Position: Anthropomorphic Misalignment Research Needs Stronger Evidence [52.76826423649968]
  We show how conceptual ambiguity, non-robust datasets, experimental design, and insufficient causal interventions can lead to overinterpretation of model behaviors.<n>This position paper aims to offer guidance on evidentiary considerations that can help improve methodological rigor in AMR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T16:38:53Z)
• Rethinking Software Empirical Studies with Structural Causal Models [12.18241004961061]
  Causal Inference offers a fundamental approach for advancing empirical software engineering (ESE) beyond traditional statistical association.<n>This paper introduces CausalSE, a framework that operationalizes Judea Pearl's causal inference paradigm in ESE context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T13:41:05Z)
• Practical validation of synthetic pre-crash scenarios [5.031637169030579]
  A gap remains in the robust evaluation of synthetic pre-crash scenarios' practical equivalence to their real-world counterparts.<n>Conventional significance testing is inadequate, as it focuses on detecting differences rather than establishing practical equivalence.<n>This study introduces a binning-based approach to define appropriate statistics and equivalence criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-06T07:08:06Z)
• The Story is Not the Science: Execution-Grounded Evaluation of Mechanistic Interpretability Research [56.80927148740585]
  We address the challenges of scalability and rigor by flipping the dynamic and developing AI agents as research evaluators.<n>We use mechanistic interpretability research as a testbed, build standardized research output, and develop MechEvalAgent.<n>Our work demonstrates the potential of AI agents to transform research evaluation and pave the way for rigorous scientific practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T19:00:02Z)
• On Meta-Evaluation [11.44925492599594]
  Methods such as observational studies, design of experiments (DoE), and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shaped modern scientific practice.<n>We introduce a formal framework for meta-evaluation by defining the evaluation space, its structured representation, and a benchmark we call AxiaBench.<n>AxiaBench enables the first large-scale, quantitative comparison of ten widely used evaluation methods across eight representative application domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T06:31:16Z)
• Causality can systematically address the monsters under the bench(marks) [64.36592889550431]
  Benchmarks are plagued by various biases, artifacts, or leakage.<n>Models may behave unreliably due to poorly explored failure modes.<n> causality offers an ideal framework to systematically address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T17:01:37Z)
• A Call for Critically Rethinking and Reforming Data Analysis in Empirical Software Engineering [5.687882380471718]
  Concerns about the correct application of empirical methodologies have existed since the 2006 Dagstuhl seminar on Empirical Software Engineering.<n>We conducted a literature survey of 27,000 empirical studies, using LLMs to classify statistical methodologies as adequate or inadequate.<n>We selected 30 primary studies and held a workshop with 33 ESE experts to assess their ability to identify and resolve statistical issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-22T09:05:01Z)
• A Double Machine Learning Approach to Combining Experimental and Observational Data [58.05402364136958]
  We propose a double machine learning approach to combine experimental and observational studies.<n>Our framework proposes a falsification test for external validity and ignorability under milder assumptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-04T02:53:11Z)
• Improved Policy Evaluation for Randomized Trials of Algorithmic Resource Allocation [54.72195809248172]
  We present a new estimator leveraging our proposed novel concept, that involves retrospective reshuffling of participants across experimental arms at the end of an RCT. We prove theoretically that such an estimator is more accurate than common estimators based on sample means.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-06T05:17:22Z)
• Targeting Learning: Robust Statistics for Reproducible Research [1.1455937444848387]
  Targeted Learning is a subfield of statistics that unifies advances in causal inference, machine learning and statistical theory to help answer scientifically impactful questions with statistical confidence. The roadmap of Targeted Learning emphasizes tailoring statistical procedures so as to minimize their assumptions, carefully grounding them only in the scientific knowledge available.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-12T17:17:01Z)

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.