A Framework for Using LLMs for Repository Mining Studies in Empirical Software Engineering

November 15, 2024 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› 2025 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Methodological Issues with Empirical Studies in Software Engineering (WSESE)

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Vincenzo de Martino, Joel CastaΓ±o, Fabio Palomba, Xavier Franch, Silverio MartΓ­nez-FernΓ‘ndez arXiv ID 2411.09974 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 7 Venue 2025 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Methodological Issues with Empirical Studies in Software Engineering (WSESE) Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Context: The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) has significantly transformed Software Engineering (SE) by providing innovative methods for analyzing software repositories. Objectives: Our objective is to establish a practical framework for future SE researchers needing to enhance the data collection and dataset while conducting software repository mining studies using LLMs. Method: This experience report shares insights from two previous repository mining studies, focusing on the methodologies used for creating, refining, and validating prompts that enhance the output of LLMs, particularly in the context of data collection in empirical studies. Results: Our research packages a framework, coined Prompt Refinement and Insights for Mining Empirical Software repositories (PRIMES), consisting of a checklist that can improve LLM usage performance, enhance output quality, and minimize errors through iterative processes and comparisons among different LLMs. We also emphasize the significance of reproducibility by implementing mechanisms for tracking model results. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that standardizing prompt engineering and using PRIMES can enhance the reliability and reproducibility of studies utilizing LLMs. Ultimately, this work calls for further research to address challenges like hallucinations, model biases, and cost-effectiveness in integrating LLMs into workflows.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted