BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Marvin Wyrich

Marvin Wyrich appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Software EngineeringHuman-Computer InteractionArtificial Intelligence

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Bots Don't Mind Waiting, Do They? Comparing the Interaction With Automatically and Manually Created Pull Requests

As a maintainer of an open source software project, you are usually happy about contributions in the form of pull requests that bring the project a step forward. Past studies have shown that when reviewing a pull request, not only its content is taken into account, but also, for example, the social characteristics of the contributor. Whether a contribution is accepted and how long this takes therefore depends not only on the content of the contribution. What we only have indications for so far, however, is that pull requests from bots may be prioritized lower, even if the bots are explicitly deployed by the development team and are considered useful. One goal of the bot research and development community is to design helpful bots to effectively support software development in a variety of ways. To get closer to this goal, in this GitHub mining study, we examine the measurable differences in how maintainers interact with manually created pull requests from humans compared to those created automatically by bots. About one third of all pull requests on GitHub currently come from bots. While pull requests from humans are accepted and merged in 72.53% of all cases, this applies to only 37.38% of bot pull requests. Furthermore, it takes significantly longer for a bot pull request to be interacted with and for it to be merged, even though they contain fewer changes on average than human pull requests. These results suggest that bots have yet to realize their full potential.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

An Empirical Validation of Cognitive Complexity as a Measure of Source Code Understandability

Background: Developers spend a lot of their time on understanding source code. Static code analysis tools can draw attention to code that is difficult for developers to understand. However, most of the findings are based on non-validated metrics, which can lead to confusion and code, that is hard to understand, not being identified. Aims: In this work, we validate a metric called Cognitive Complexity which was explicitly designed to measure code understandability and which is already widely used due to its integration in well-known static code analysis tools. Method: We conducted a systematic literature search to obtain data sets from studies which measured code understandability. This way we obtained about 24,000 understandability evaluations of 427 code snippets. We calculated the correlations of these measurements with the corresponding metric values and statistically summarized the correlation coefficients through a meta-analysis. Results: Cognitive Complexity positively correlates with comprehension time and subjective ratings of understandability. The metric showed mixed results for the correlation with the correctness of comprehension tasks and with physiological measures. Conclusions: It is the first validated and solely code-based metric which is able to reflect at least some aspects of code understandability. Moreover, due to its methodology, this work shows that code understanding is currently measured in many different ways, which we also do not know how they are related. This makes it difficult to compare the results of individual studies as well as to develop a metric that measures code understanding in all its facets.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Perception and Acceptance of an Autonomous Refactoring Bot

The use of autonomous bots for automatic support in software development tasks is increasing. In the past, however, they were not always perceived positively and sometimes experienced a negative bias compared to their human counterparts. We conducted a qualitative study in which we deployed an autonomous refactoring bot for 41 days in a student software development project. In between and at the end, we conducted semi-structured interviews to find out how developers perceive the bot and whether they are more or less critical when reviewing the contributions of a bot compared to human contributions. Our findings show that the bot was perceived as a useful and unobtrusive contributor, and developers were no more critical of it than they were about their human colleagues, but only a few team members felt responsible for the bot.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access