The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Analyzing the State of Static Analysis: A Large-Scale Evaluation in Open Source Software
Open accessAbstract
The use of automatic static analysis has been a software engineering best practice for decades. However, we still do not know a lot about its use in real-world software projects: How prevalent is the use of Automated Static Analysis Tools (ASATs) such as FindBugs and JSHint? How do developers use these tools, and how does their use evolve over time? We research these questions in two studies on nine different ASATs for Java, JavaScript, Ruby, and Python with a population of 122 and 168,214 open-source projects. To compare warnings across the ASATs, we introduce the General Defect Classification (GDC) and provide a grounded-theory-derived mapping of 1,825 ASAT-specific warnings to 16 top-level GDC classes. Our results show that ASAT use is widespread, but not ubiquitous, and that projects typically do not enforce a strict policy on ASAT use. Most ASAT configurations deviate slightly from the default, but hardly any introduce new custom analyses. Only a very small set of default ASAT analyses is widely changed. Finally, most ASAT configurations, once introduced, never change. If they do, the changes are small and have a tendency to occur within one day of the configuration's initial introduction.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact.
Adair, J. G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.334 · Cited by 1,095
Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation
Furnham, A. (1986) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0 · Cited by 1,033
Orthogonal defect classification-a concept for in-process measurements
Chillarege, R., Bhandari, I. S., Chaar, J. K., Halliday, M. J., Moebus, D. S., Ray, B. K., & Wong, M.-Y. (1992) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/32.177364 · Cited by 792
Why don't software developers use static analysis tools to find bugs?
Johnson, B., Song, Y., Murphy-Hill, E., & Bowdidge, R. (2013) · 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse.2013.6606613 · Cited by 568 · cited 3×
“Developers might be unaware of these benefits or an overload of warning messages generated by multiple ASATs might cause developers to avoid them [12].”
BackgroundResult(2013) · doi:10.5555/2486788.2486882 · Cited by 437
(2014) · doi:10.1145/2597073.2597082 · Cited by 252
Self-citation
Cited by
(2018) · doi:10.1145/3180155.3180209 · Cited by 98
Metadata
- Authors
- Beller, M., Bholanath, R., McIntosh, S., & Zaidman, A.
- Venue
- 2016 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2016-03
- Pages
- 470-481
- OpenAlex
- W814172419
- Cited by
- 219
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 18.52
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Analyzing the State of Static Analysis: A Large-Scale Evaluation in Open Source Software. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/saner.2016.105
- The paper
- Beller, M., Bholanath, R., McIntosh, S., & Zaidman, A. (2016). Analyzing the State of Static Analysis: A Large-Scale Evaluation in Open Source Software. 2016 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER). https://doi.org/10.1109/saner.2016.105
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.
