Cited by 114Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies

Examining the Impact of Self-Admitted Technical Debt on Software Quality

Wehaibi, Sultan, Shihab, Emad, Guerrouj, Latifa·2016·2016 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER)

Abstract

Technical debt refers to incomplete or temporary workarounds that allow us to speed software development in the short term at the cost of paying a higher price later on. Recently, studies have shown that technical debt can be detected from source code comments, referred to as self-admitted technical debt. Researchers have examined the detection, classification and removal of self-admitted technical debt. However, to date there is no empirical evidence on the impact of self-admitted technical debt on software quality. Therefore, in this paper, we examine the relation between self-admitted technical debt and software quality by investigating whether (i) files with self-admitted technical debt have more defects compared to files without self-admitted technical debt, (ii) whether self-admitted technical debt changes introduce future defects, and (iii) whether self-admitted technical debt-related changes tend to be more difficult. We measured the difficulty of a change using well-known measures proposed in prior work such as the amount of churn, the number of files, the number of modified modules in a change, as well as the entropy of a change. An empirical study using five open source projects, namely Hadoop, Chromium, Cassandra, Spark and Tomcat, showed that: (i) there is no clear trend when it comes to defects and self-admitted technical debt, although the defectiveness of the technical debt files increases after the introduction of technical debt, (ii) self-admitted technical…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/saner.2016.72

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Files affected by technical debt tend to be more defect-prone.

    “files affected by technical debt tend to be more defect-prone [24].”

    From Self-Admitted GenAI Usage in Open-Source Software (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wehaibi, S., Shihab, E., & Guerrouj, L.
Affiliations
  • Concordia University (CA)
  • École de Technologie Supérieure (CA)
Venue
2016 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2016-03
Pages
179-188
OpenAlex
W2395955025
Cited by
114
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1
FWCI
6.13
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Keywords
self-admitted technical debt, technical debt, software quality, fault prediction, code comments, customer churn, open source software, software maintainability

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