Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 161

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How developers engage with static analysis tools in different contexts

Open access
Vassallo, Carmine, Panichella, Sebastiano, Palomba, Fabio, Proksch, Sebastian, Gall, Harald C., Zaidman, Andy·2020·Empirical Software Engineering
DOI 10.1007/s10664-019-09750-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10664-019-09750-5

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Hovemeyer D, Pugh W (2004) Finding Bugs is Easy. In: OOPSLA 2004, ACM, pp 132–136. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1028664.1028717 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Al Shalabi L, Shaaban Z, Kasasbeh B (2006) Data mining: a preprocessing engine. J Comput Sci 2(9):735–739 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Ayewah N, Pugh W, Hovemeyer D, Morgenthaler JD, Penix J (2008) Using static analysis to find bugs. IEEE Softw 25(5):22–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2008.130 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Ayewah N, Pugh W, Morgenthaler JD, Penix J, Zhou Y (2007) Evaluating static analysis defect warnings on production software. In: Das M, Grossman D (eds) Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT workshop on program analysis for software tools and engineering, PASTE’07, San Diego, California, USA, June 13-14, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1145/1251535.1251536. ACM, pp 1–8 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Balachandran V (2013) Reducing human effort and improving quality in peer code reviews using automatic static analysis and reviewer recommendation. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering (ICSE). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2013.6606642. IEEE, pp 931–940 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Beller M, Bholanath R, McIntosh S, Zaidman A (2016) Analyzing the state of static analysis: a large-scale evaluation in open source software. In: IEEE 23rd international conference on software analysis, evolution, and reengineering, SANER 2016, Suita, Osaka, Japan, March 14-18, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER.2016.105, vol 1. IEEE Computer Society, pp 470–481 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Beller M, Gousios G, Panichella A, Proksch S, Amann S, Zaidman A (2017) Developer testing in the IDE: patterns, beliefs, and behavior. IEEE Trans Softw Eng (TSE)
  8. Beller M, Gousios G, Panichella A, Zaidman A (2015a) When, how and why developers (do not) test in their IDEs. In: Proceedings of the joint meeting of the European software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on the foundations of software engineering (ESEC/FSE). ACM, pp 179–190 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Beller M, Gousios G, Zaidman A (2015b) How (much) do developers test?. In: 37th IEEE/ACM international conference on software engineering (ICSE 2015). IEEE Computer Society, pp 559–562 · DOI
  10. Beller M, Gousios G, Zaidman A (2017) Oops, my tests broke the build: an explorative analysis of travis ci with github. In: International conference on mining software repositories. IEEE Press, pp 356–367 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Beller M, Gousios G, Zaidman A (2017) TravisTorrent: synthesizing Travis CI and GitHub for full-stack research on continuous integration. In: Proceedings of the 14th working conference on mining software repositories. IEEE, pp 447–450 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Bodden E (2018) Self-adaptive static analysis. In: Proceedings of the 40th international conference on software engineering: new ideas and emerging results, ICSE-NIER ’18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3183399.3183401. ACM, New York, pp 45–48 · DOI
  13. Buckers T, Cao C, Doesburg M, Gong B, Wang S, Beller M, Zaidman A (2017) UAV: warnings from multiple automated static analysis tools at a glance. In: IEEE 24th international conference on software analysis, evolution and reengineering (SANER). IEEE Computer Society, pp 472–476 · doi:10.1109/saner.2017.7884656
  14. Catolino G, Palomba F, De Lucia A, Ferrucci F, Zaidman A (2018) Enhancing change prediction models using developer-related factors. J Syst Softw 143:14–28 · DOI
  15. Chen L (2015) Continuous delivery: huge benefits, but challenges too. IEEE Softw 32(2):50–54 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20(1):37–46 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Di Penta M, Cerulo L, Aversano L (2009) The life and death of statically detected vulnerabilities: an empirical study. Inf Softw Technol 51(10):1469–1484 · DOI
  18. Dias M, Cassou D, Ducasse S (2013) Representing code history with development environment events. In: International workshop on smalltalk technologies
  19. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, New York · DOI · Paper page
  20. D’silva V, Kroening D, Weissenbacher G (2008) A survey of automated techniques for formal software verification. IEEE Trans Comput Aided Des Integr Circuits Syst 27(7):1165–1178 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Emanuelsson P, Nilsson U (2008) A comparative study of industrial static analysis tools. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 217:5–21 · DOI
  22. Flanagan C, Leino KRM, Lillibridge M, Nelson G, Saxe JB, Stata R (2002) Extended static checking for java. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN conference on programming language design and implementation (PLDI), pp 234–245 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Gibbs L, Kealy M, Willis K, Green J, Welch N, Daly J (2007) What have sampling and data collection got to do with good qualitative research? Aust N Z J Public Health 31(6):540–544 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Gousios G, Pinzger M, van Deursen A (2014) An exploratory study of the pull-based software development model. In: Proceedings of the 36th international conference on software engineering, ICSE 2014. https://doi.org/10.1145/2568225.2568260. ACM, New York, pp 345–355 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Gousios G, Zaidman A, Storey MA, van Deursen A (2015) Work practices and challenges in pull-based development: the integrator’s perspective. In: 37th IEEE/ACM international conference on software engineering (ICSE 2015). IEEE computer society, pp 358–368 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Heckman SS, Williams LA (2011) A systematic literature review of actionable alert identification techniques for automated static code analysis. Inf Softw Technol 53 (4):363–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.12.007 · DOI
  27. Hilton M, Tunnell T, Huang K, Marinov D, Dig D (2016) Usage, costs, and benefits of continuous integration in open-source projects. In: Proceedings of the 31st IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering (ASE 2016). ACM, pp 426–437 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Coverity (2009) Effective management of static analysis vulnerabilities and defects. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1970/a4d1746734577a6eb4fdd783668f6b4202ef.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2019
  29. Jørgensen M (2004) A review of studies on expert estimation of software development effort. J Syst Softw 70(1-2):37–60 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Khoshgoftaar TM, Allen EB (1998) Classification of fault-prone software modules: prior probabilities, costs, and model evaluation. Empir Softw Eng 3(3):275–298 · DOI
  31. Kim S, Ernst MD (2007) Which warnings should I fix first?. In: Proceedings of the the 6th joint meeting of the european software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on the foundations of software engineering, ESEC-FSE ’07. https://doi.org/10.1145/1287624.1287633. ACM, pp 45–54 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Lehman MM (1980) On understanding laws, evolution, and conservation in the large-program life cycle. J Syst Softw 1:213–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/0164-1212(79)90022-0 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Mahmood R, Mahmoud QH (2018) Evaluation of static analysis tools for finding vulnerabilities in java and C/C++ source code. arXiv:1805.09040 · arXiv
  34. McIntosh S, Kamei Y, Adams B, Hassan AE (2014) The impact of code review coverage and code review participation on software quality: a case study of the qt, vtk, and ITK projects. In: Proceedings of the working conference on mining software repositories (MSR), pp 192–201 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Muske T, Talluri R, Serebrenik A (2018) Repositioning of static analysis alarms. In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on software testing and analysis, ISSTA 2018. https://doi.org/10.1145/3213846.3213850. ACM, New York, pp 187–197 · doi:10.1145/3213846.3213850
  36. Nagappan N, Ball T (2005) Static analysis tools as early indicators of pre-release defect density. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering (ICSE), pp 580–586
  37. Nanda MG, Gupta M, Sinha S, Chandra S, Schmidt D, Balachandran P (2010) Making defect-finding tools work for you. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering (ASE), vol 2, pp 99–108 · DOI
  38. Nurolahzade M, Nasehi SM, Khandkar SH, Rawal S (2009) The role of patch review in software evolution: an analysis of the mozilla firefox. In: Proceedings of the joint international and annual ERCIM workshops on principles of software evolution (IWPSE) and software evolution (Evol) workshops, pp 9–18 · doi:10.1145/1595808.1595813
  39. Oppenheim B (1992) Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. Pinter Publishers, London
  40. Palomba F, Zanoni M, Fontana FA, De Lucia A, Oliveto R (2017) Toward a smell-aware bug prediction model. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 45(2):194–218 · DOI
  41. Panichella S, Arnaoudova V, Di Penta M, Antoniol G (2015) Would static analysis tools help developers with code reviews?. In: 22nd IEEE international conference on software analysis, evolution, and reengineering, SANER 2015, Montreal, QC, Canada, March 2-6, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER.2015.7081826, pp 161–170 · DOI
  42. Parnas DL, Lawford M (2003) The role of inspection in software quality assurance. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 29(8):674–676 · DOI
  43. Proksch S, Nadi S, Amann S, Mezini M (2017) Enriching in-ide process information with fine-grained source code history. In: International conference on software analysis, evolution, and reengineering · DOI
  44. Rahman F, Khatri S, Barr ET, Devanbu PT (2014) Comparing static bug finders and statistical prediction. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering (ICSE), pp 424–434 · DOI
  45. Rigby PC (2011) Understanding open source software peer review: review processes, parameters and statistical models, and underlying behaviours and mechanisms. Ph.D. thesis, University of Victoria, BC Canada
  46. Rigby PC, German DM (2006) A preliminary examination of code review processes in open source projects. Tech. Rep. DCS-305-IR, University of Victoria
  47. Ruthruff JR, Penix J, Morgenthaler JD, Elbaum S, Rothermel G (2008) Predicting accurate and actionable static analysis warnings: an experimental approach. In: Proceedings of the 30th international conference on software engineering. ACM, pp 341–350 · DOI
  48. Sadowski C, van Gogh J, Jaspan C, Söderberg E, Winter C (2015) Tricorder: building a program analysis ecosystem. In: Bertolino A, Canfora G, Elbaum SG (eds) 37th IEEE/ACM international conference on software engineering, ICSE 2015, Florence, Italy, May 16-24, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2015.76, vol 1. IEEE Computer Society, pp 598–608 · DOI
  49. Thung F, Lucia L, Lo D, Jiang L, Rahman F, Devanbu PT (2012) To what extent could we detect field defects? an empirical study of false negatives in static bug finding tools. In: Proceedings of the international conference on automated software engineering (ASE), pp 50–59 · DOI
  50. Vassallo C, Palomba F, Bacchelli A, Gall HC (2018) Continuous code quality: are we (really) doing that?. In: ASE. ACM, pp 790–795 · DOI
  51. Vassallo C, Palomba F, Gall HC (2018) Continuous refactoring in ci: a preliminary study on the perceived advantages and barriers. In: 34th IEEE international conference on software maintenance and evolution (ICSME) · DOI
  52. Vassallo C, Panichella S, Palomba F, Proksch S, Zaidman A, Gall HC (2018) Context is king: the developer perspective on the usage of static analysis tools. In: SANER. IEEE Computer Society, pp 38–49 · DOI
  53. Vassallo C, Proksch S, Zemp T, Gall HC (2018) Un-break my build: assisting developers with build repair hints. In: International conference on program comprehension (ICPC). IEEE · DOI
  54. Vassallo C, Schermann G, Zampetti F, Romano D, Leitner P, Zaidman A, Di Penta M, Panichella S (2017) A tale of CI build failures: an open source and a financial organization perspective. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on software maintenance and evolution, ICSME 2017, Shanghai, China, September 17-22, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSME.2017.67. IEEE Computer Society, pp 183–193 · DOI
  55. Vassallo C, Zampetti F, Romano D, Beller M, Panichella A, Di Penta M, Zaidman A (2016) Continuous delivery practices in a large financial organization. In: 32nd IEEE international conference on software maintenance and evolution (ICSME), pp 41–50 · DOI
  56. Wagner S, Jürjens J, Koller C, Trischberger P (2005) Comparing bug finding tools with reviews and tests. In: Proceedings of the 17th IFIP TC6/WG 6.1 international conference on testing of communicating systems, pp 40–55
  57. Zampetti F, Scalabrino S, Oliveto R, Canfora G, Di Penta M (2017) How open source projects use static code analysis tools in continuous integration pipelines. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on mining software repositories. IEEE Press, pp 334–344 · DOI
  58. Zheng J, Williams L, Nagappan N, Snipes W, Hudepohl J, Vouk M (2006) On the value of static analysis for fault detection in software. IEEE Trans Softw Eng (TSE) 32(4):240–253 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 161

Metadata

Authors
Vassallo, C., Panichella, S., Palomba, F., Proksch, S., Gall, H. C., & Zaidman, A.
Venue
Empirical Software Engineering
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-11-25
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
1419-1457
ISSN
  • 1382-3256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7616
DOI
10.1007/s10664-019-09750-5
OpenAlex
W2990685757
Cited by
161
References
7
FWCI
14.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
Funders
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (166275)
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (639.022.314)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How developers engage with static analysis tools in different contexts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10664-019-09750-5
The paper
Vassallo, C., Panichella, S., Palomba, F., Proksch, S., Gall, H. C., & Zaidman, A. (2020). How developers engage with static analysis tools in different contexts. Empirical Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-019-09750-5

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.