CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Software Engineering ResearchOpen Source Software Innovationsscientometrics and bibliometrics research

Revealing the value of Repository Centrality in lifespan prediction of Open Source Software Projects

Open access
He, Runzhi, Ye, Hengzhi, Zhou, Minghui·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2405.07508arXiv 2405.07508
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Open Source Software is the building block of modern software. However, the prevalence of project deprecation in the open source world weakens the integrity of the downstream systems and the broad ecosystem. Therefore it calls for efforts in monitoring and predicting project deprecations, empowering stakeholders to take proactive measures. Challenge: Existing techniques mainly focus on static features on a point in time to make predictions, resulting in limited effects. Goal: We propose a novel metric from the user-repository network, and leverage the metric to fit project deprecation predictors and prove its real-life implications. Method: We establish a comprehensive dataset containing 103,354 non-fork GitHub OSS projects spanning from 2011 to 2023. We propose repository centrality, a family of HITS weights that captures shifts in the popularity of a repository in the repository-user star network. Further with the metric, we utilize the advancements in gradient boosting and deep learning to fit survival analysis models to predict project lifespan or its survival hazard. Results: Our study reveals a correlation between the HITS centrality metrics and the repository deprecation risk. A drop in the HITS weights of a repository indicates a decline in its centrality and prevalence, leading to an increase in its deprecation risk and a decrease in its expected lifespan. Our predictive models powered by repository centrality and other repository features achieve satisfactory accuracy on the test set, with repository centrality being the most significant feature among all. Implications: This research offers a novel perspective on understanding the effect of prevalence on the deprecation of OSS repositories. Our approach to predict repository deprecation help detect health status of project and take actions in advance, fostering a more resilient OSS ecosystem.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2405.07508

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • The number of GitHub stars is merely a popularity signal, with only moderate correlation to actual usage or importance.

    “it is merely a popularity signal (i.e., the attention received from GitHub users), with only moderate correlation to actual usage or importance as shown in prior studies [56, 61, 80].”

    From Six Million (Suspected) Fake Stars on GitHub: A Growing Spiral of Popularity Contests, Spams, and Malware (2026) · cites this paper as [56]

    In “Defining Repository Centrality” (page unavailable), the paper calls stars indicators of popularity and attention. “Preliminary Analysis” (page unavailable) reports a moderate correlation between star counts and HITS repository-centrality scores, and argues that star counts do not reliably represent project impact. It does not measure a moderate correlation between stars and actual usage or importance, so that part of the claim goes beyond the reported result. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Stars on GitHub are not a reliable signal.

    “Our study is far from the first showing that stars on GitHub are not a reliable signal [2, 56, 61, 80].”

    From Six Million (Suspected) Fake Stars on GitHub: A Growing Spiral of Popularity Contests, Spams, and Malware (2026) · cites this paper as [56]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. R. Robbes, M. Lungu, and D. Röthlisberger, "How do developers react to api deprecation? the case of a smalltalk ecosystem," in Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT 20th International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, 2012, pp. 1-11.
  2. A. A. Sawant, R. Robbes, and A. Bacchelli, "On the reaction to deprecation of 25,357 clients of 4+ 1 popular java apis," in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). IEEE, 2016, pp. 400-410.
  3. J. Khondhu, A. Capiluppi, and K.-J. Stol, "Is it all lost? a study of inactive open source projects," in Open Source Software: Quality Verifi- cation: 9th IFIP WG 2.13 International Conference, OSS 2013, Koper- Capodistria, Slovenia, June 25-28, 2013. Proceedings 9. Springer, 2013, pp. 61-79.
  4. I. Samoladas, L. Angelis, and I. Stamelos, "Survival analysis on the duration of open source projects," Information and Software Technology, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 902-922, 2010.
  5. X. Li, S. Moreschini, F. Pecorelli, and D. Taibi, "Ossara: abandonment risk assessment for embedded open source components," IEEE Software, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 48-53, 2022.
  6. M. Valiev, B. Vasilescu, and J. Herbsleb, "Ecosystem-level determinants of sustained activity in open-source projects: A case study of the pypi ecosystem," in Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, 2018, pp. 644-655.
  7. R. G. Kula, A. Ouni, D. M. German, and K. Inoue, "On the impact of micro-packages: An empirical study of the npm javascript ecosystem," arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.04638, 2017. · arXiv
  8. J. Coelho, M. T. Valente, L. L. Silva, and E. Shihab, "Identifying unmaintained projects in github," in Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Mea- surement, 2018, pp. 1-10.
  9. J. Coelho, M. T. Valente, L. Milen, and L. L. Silva, "Is this github project maintained? measuring the level of maintenance activity of open-source projects," Information and Software Technology, vol. 122, p. 106274, 2020.
  10. S. Mujahid, D. E. Costa, R. Abdalkareem, E. Shihab, M. A. Saied, and B. Adams, "Toward using package centrality trend to identify packages in decline," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 3618-3632, 2021.
  11. A. Clauset, M. E. Newman, and C. Moore, "Finding community structure in very large networks," Physical review E, vol. 70, no. 6, p. 066111, 2004.
  12. M. Pinzger, N. Nagappan, and B. Murphy, "Can developer-module networks predict failures?" in Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of software engineering, 2008, pp. 2-12.
  13. N. Nagappan, A. Zeller, T. Zimmermann, K. Herzig, and B. Murphy, "Change bursts as defect predictors," in 2010 IEEE 21st international symposium on software reliability engineering. IEEE, 2010, pp. 309- 318.
  14. J. Coelho and M. T. Valente, "Why modern open source projects fail," in Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint meeting on foundations of software engineering, 2017, pp. 186-196.
  15. W. Xiao, H. He, W. Xu, X. Tan, J. Dong, and M. Zhou, "Recommending good first issues in github oss projects," in Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2022, pp. 1830- 1842.
  16. L. Tunstall, N. Reimers, U. E. S. Jo, L. Bates, D. Korat, M. Wasserblat, and O. Pereg, "Efficient few-shot learning without prompts," CoRR, vol. abs/2209.11055, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.11055 · DOI
  17. N. Reimers and I. Gurevych, "Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks," in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, K. Inui, J. Jiang, V. Ng, and X. Wan, Eds. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019, pp. 3980-3990. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1410 · DOI · Paper page
  18. G. Gousios, "The ghtorent dataset and tool suite," in 2013 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). IEEE, 2013, pp. 233-236.
  19. A. Mockus, R. T. Fielding, and J. D. Herbsleb, "Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and mozilla," ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 309-346, 2002.
  20. W. Xiao, H. He, W. Xu, Y. Zhang, and M. Zhou, "How early participation determines long-term sustained activity in github projects?" in Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ser. ESEC/FSE 2023. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2023, p. 29-41. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3611643.3616349 · DOI
  21. K. Blincoe, J. Sheoran, S. Goggins, E. Petakovic, and D. Damian, "Understanding the popular users: Following, affiliation influence and leadership on github," Information and Software Technology, vol. 70, pp. 30-39, 2016.
  22. K. Crowston, K. Wei, J. Howison, and A. Wiggins, "Free/libre open- source software development: What we know and what we do not know," ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 1-35, 2008.
  23. E. Kalliamvakou, G. Gousios, K. Blincoe, L. Singer, D. M. German, and D. Damian, "The promises and perils of mining github," in Proceedings of the 11th working conference on mining software repositories, 2014, pp. 92-101.
  24. J. M. Kleinberg, "Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment," Journal of the ACM (JACM), vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 604-632, 1999.
  25. M. R. Prajapati, "A survey paper on hyperlink-induced topic search (hits) algorithms for web mining," Int J Eng, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 8, 2012.
  26. M. Goeminne and T. Mens, "Evidence for the pareto principle in open source software activity," in the Joint Porceedings of the 1st International workshop on Model Driven Software Maintenance and 5th International Workshop on Software Quality and Maintainability. Citeseer, 2011, pp. 74-82.
  27. Y. Zhang, M. Zhou, A. Mockus, and Z. Jin, "Companies' participation in OSS development-an empirical study of openstack," IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 2242-2259, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2019.2946156 · DOI
  28. A. Ait, J. L. C. Izquierdo, and J. Cabot, "An empirical study on the survival rate of github projects," in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, 2022, pp. 365-375.
  29. M. G. Kendall, "A new measure of rank correlation," Biometrika, vol. 30, no. 1/2, pp. 81-93, 1938.
  30. S. Prion and K. A. Haerling, "Making sense of methods and mea- surement: Spearman-rho ranked-order correlation coefficient," Clinical Simulation in Nursing, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 535-536, 2014.
  31. I. Samoladas, L. Angelis, and I. Stamelos, "Survival analysis on the duration of open source projects," Information and Software Technology, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 902-922, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584910000790
  32. M. Zhou, A. Mockus, X. Ma, L. Zhang, and H. Mei, "Inflow and retention in oss communities with commercial involvement: A case study of three hybrid projects," ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., vol. 25, no. 2, apr 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/2876443 · DOI
  33. M. Joblin and S. Apel, "How do successful and failed projects differ? a socio-technical analysis," ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1-24, 2022.
  34. D. R. Cox, "Regression models and life-tables," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 187- 202, 1972.
  35. A. Barnwal, H. Cho, and T. Hocking, "Survival regression with accelerated failure time model in xgboost," J. Comput. Graph. Stat., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1292-1302, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.2022.2067548 · DOI
  36. Y. Li, J. Ju, X. Liu, T. Gao, Z. Wang, Q. Ni, C. Ma, Z. Zhao, Y. Ren, and M. Sun, "Nomograms for predicting long-term overall survival and cancer-specific survival in patients with major salivary gland cancer: a population-based study," Oncotarget, vol. 8, no. 15, p. 24469, 2017.
  37. V. Borisov, T. Leemann, K. Seßler, J. Haug, M. Pawelczyk, and G. Kasneci, "Deep neural networks and tabular data: A survey," IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2022.
  38. S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, "A unified approach to interpreting model predictions," Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017.
  39. K. Ren, J. Qin, L. Zheng, Z. Yang, W. Zhang, L. Qiu, and Y. Yu, "Deep recurrent survival analysis," in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 33, no. 01, 2019, pp. 4798-4805.
  40. F. E. Harrell et al., Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. Springer, 2001, vol. 608.
  41. G. Gousios, M. Pinzger, and A. v. Deursen, "An exploratory study of the pull-based software development model," in Proceedings of the 36th international conference on software engineering, 2014, pp. 345-355.
  42. A. Capiluppi and M. Michlmayr, "From the cathedral to the bazaar: An empirical study of the lifecycle of volunteer community projects," in IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems. Springer, 2007, pp. 31-44.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
He, R., Ye, H., & Zhou, M.
Affiliations
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (CN)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2405.07508
arXiv
2405.07508
OpenAlex
W4396913703
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
open source software, HITS algorithm, survival analysis, GitHub projects

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