pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.00435 · v1 · pith:KZOVOCPLnew · submitted 2026-07-01 · 💻 cs.SE

Social Popularity of GitHub Projects: A Lifeline or a Liability?

Mohit Kaushik , Kuljit Kaur Chahal This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 09:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE
keywords githubproject survivalsocial popularityhuman capitalaccelerated failure timeopen sourcerepository inactivitysurvival analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

Human capital protects GitHub projects from inactivity while social popularity increases the risk, especially with accessibility features.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper analyzes more than 73,000 GitHub repositories with an Accelerated Failure Time survival model that treats predictors like social attention as time-varying. It finds that the number of contributors is the strongest factor keeping projects active. Social attention acts as a liability rather than a benefit, and this liability grows when projects also have features that ease onboarding for outsiders. The interaction between contributor count and popularity shows that labor capacity can counteract the harm from visibility.

Core claim

Using an Accelerated Failure Time framework on more than 73,000 repositories, the authors establish that human capital measured by the number of contributors is the most critical determinant of project survival. Excessive social attention emerges as a liability, and when coupled with accessibility features it amplifies the risk of project inactivity. When the number of contributors interacts with social popularity the protective effect of labor becomes visible.

What carries the argument

Accelerated Failure Time survival model applied to time-varying predictors of social attention, accessibility, and contributor count across a sample of 73,000 GitHub repositories.

Load-bearing premise

The Accelerated Failure Time model correctly captures causal effects of social attention and accessibility without residual confounding from unmeasured project characteristics or selection effects in the sample.

What would settle it

A direct comparison showing that projects with high social attention but few contributors do not exhibit elevated inactivity rates after matching on observable quality metrics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00435 by Kuljit Kaur Chahal, Mohit Kaushik.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Kernel Density Estimation of Project Creation Year by State [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Kaplan-Meier survival estimates stratified by Code Readability ter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Kaplan-Meier survival estimates stratified by Social Popularity ter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Kaplan-Meier survival estimates stratified by License Category. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Kaplan-Meier survival estimates stratified by Programming [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Schoenfeld residual diagnostic plots for the Cox proportional hazards model covariates. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Social coding platforms such as GitHub host millions of repositories, yet many suffer from high mortality rates. Despite this, several survival factors remain poorly understood. Human capital is widely recognized as essential. Social attention, while often assumed to be a lifeline, can become a liability. Structural features that improve onboarding, such as code readability and documentation, may also accelerate the cessation of active development when combined with massive visibility. To examine these dynamics, we analyzed more than 73,000 GitHub repositories using an Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) survival framework, which accounts for the time-varying nature of predictors. Our study identifies human capital as the most critical determinant of project survival. In contrast, excessive social attention emerges as a liability, and when coupled with accessibility features, it amplifies the risk of project inactivity. Importantly, when the number of contributors interacts with social popularity, the protective effect of labor becomes visible, highlighting the need for governance strategies that balance visibility with labor capacity to ensure the long-term resilience of open-source projects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes survival times for more than 73,000 GitHub repositories with an Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) model that incorporates time-varying covariates. It reports that the number of contributors is the strongest protective factor against project inactivity, that social popularity (stars/forks) increases inactivity risk, that this risk is amplified by accessibility features (readability/documentation), and that a positive interaction between contributor count and social popularity makes the protective role of labor visible.

Significance. If the estimated interactions survive corrections for endogeneity, the result would supply a concrete, policy-relevant finding for open-source governance: visibility without commensurate labor capacity raises mortality risk. The scale of the sample and the explicit modeling of time-varying predictors are strengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods (AFT specification): the model treats social popularity and accessibility as exogenous time-varying covariates and interprets their coefficients and interactions as causal effects on inactivity hazard, yet contains no instrumental variables, project fixed effects, frailty terms, or selection correction for the 73k-repository sample. This leaves the central claim—that social attention is a liability and that the contributor interaction reveals a protective labor effect—vulnerable to reverse causality and unobserved project quality.
  2. [Results] Results (interaction terms): the reported positive interaction between contributor count and social popularity is presented as evidence that labor capacity mitigates the liability of visibility, but the manuscript provides no out-of-sample validation, placebo tests, or robustness checks that would distinguish this pattern from simple correlation induced by jointly determined activity, popularity, and survival.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The abstract states that the AFT framework 'accounts for the time-varying nature of predictors,' but the methods section should explicitly list which covariates are time-varying, how they are lagged, and the exact functional form of the interactions.
  2. [Results] Table or figure presenting the AFT coefficients should include standard errors, p-values, and the baseline distribution (Weibull, log-normal, etc.) used for the AFT parameterization.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 2 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. We respond to each major comment below, clarifying our modeling choices and the scope of our claims. The analysis is observational and we interpret coefficients as conditional associations rather than strict causal effects.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods (AFT specification): the model treats social popularity and accessibility as exogenous time-varying covariates and interprets their coefficients and interactions as causal effects on inactivity hazard, yet contains no instrumental variables, project fixed effects, frailty terms, or selection correction for the 73k-repository sample. This leaves the central claim—that social attention is a liability and that the contributor interaction reveals a protective labor effect—vulnerable to reverse causality and unobserved project quality.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's emphasis on identification. The AFT specification with time-varying covariates is chosen to model the dynamic evolution of predictors up to the point of inactivity. Coefficients are presented as associations conditional on the observed time-varying covariates and the large sample; the manuscript does not claim to have isolated causal effects. The time-varying structure reduces some forms of simultaneity bias relative to a static model, but we agree that unobserved project quality and reverse causality remain possible. No instrumental variables or frailty terms are included because the study is designed as a large-scale descriptive survival analysis rather than a causal investigation. We therefore do not plan to revise the methods section. revision: no

  2. Referee: [Results] Results (interaction terms): the reported positive interaction between contributor count and social popularity is presented as evidence that labor capacity mitigates the liability of visibility, but the manuscript provides no out-of-sample validation, placebo tests, or robustness checks that would distinguish this pattern from simple correlation induced by jointly determined activity, popularity, and survival.

    Authors: The positive interaction is reported because it appears consistently when contributor count is interacted with the social-popularity measures inside the AFT framework. The manuscript does not contain out-of-sample validation, placebo tests, or additional robustness checks beyond the main specification and basic controls. We therefore cannot rule out that the interaction partly reflects joint determination of activity, popularity, and survival. We acknowledge this limitation and do not intend to add the requested validation exercises, as they would require substantial new analysis outside the current study's scope. revision: no

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Absence of instrumental variables, project fixed effects, frailty terms, or selection correction to address endogeneity and unobserved quality
  • Lack of out-of-sample validation, placebo tests, or further robustness checks to support the interaction interpretation

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard empirical model fit

full rationale

The paper applies a standard Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) survival model to an observational sample of over 73,000 GitHub repositories and reports coefficient estimates and interactions as identifying human capital, social attention, and accessibility effects. No equations or steps in the provided text reduce any claimed result to its inputs by construction, self-definition, or renaming. The analysis contains no load-bearing self-citations, no ansatz smuggled via prior work, and no fitted parameters relabeled as out-of-sample predictions. The derivation chain is the direct statistical estimation procedure itself, which is self-contained against the data and does not exhibit the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on fitted coefficients from an observational dataset and standard parametric assumptions of the AFT model; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • AFT regression coefficients and interaction terms
    Parameters estimated from the 73,000-repository dataset to quantify effects of human capital, social attention, and accessibility features on survival time.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Accelerated Failure Time parametric assumptions hold for GitHub project lifetime data
    The framework is invoked without reported tests of distributional fit or alternative semi-parametric specifications.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5706 in / 1244 out tokens · 30355 ms · 2026-07-02T09:07:47.646471+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    rep., Synopsys, Inc., accessed: 2026-02-27 (2024)

    Synopsys, Inc., 2024 open source security and risk analysis (ossra) report, Tech. rep., Synopsys, Inc., accessed: 2026-02-27 (2024). URLhttps://www.synopsys.com

    2024

  2. [2]

    German, and Daniela Damian

    E. Kalliamvakou, G. Gousios, K. Blincoe, L. Singer, D. M. German, D. Damian, The promises and perils of mining github, in: Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, 2014, pp. 92–101.doi:10.1145/2597073.2597074

    work page doi:10.1145/2597073.2597074 2014

  3. [3]

    A. Ait, J. L. C. Izquierdo, J. Cabot, An empirical study on the survival rate of github projects, in: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR ’22, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2022, pp. 365–375.doi:10.1145/ 3524842.3527941

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Samoladas, L

    I. Samoladas, L. Angelis, I. Stamelos, Survival analysis on the duration of open source projects, Information and Software Technology 52 (9) (2010) 902–922.doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2010.05.001. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.05.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2010.05.001 2010

  5. [5]

    Robinson, K

    D. Robinson, K. Enns, N. Koulecar, M. Sihag, Two approaches to sur- vival analysis of open source python projects, in: IEEE International Con- ference on Program Comprehension, IEEE Computer Society, 2022, pp. 660–669.doi:10.1145/3524610.3527871

    work page doi:10.1145/3524610.3527871 2022

  6. [6]

    S. Park, G. Kwon, Analyzing key features of open source software surviv- ability with random forest, Applied Sciences (2076-3417) 15 (2) (2025). doi:10.3390/app15020946

    work page doi:10.3390/app15020946 2076

  7. [7]

    Mockus, R

    A. Mockus, R. T. Fielding, J. D. Herbsleb, Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and mozilla, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 11 (3) (2002) 309– 346.doi:10.1145/567793.567795

    work page doi:10.1145/567793.567795 2002

  8. [8]

    Avelino, E

    G. Avelino, E. Constantinou, M. T. Valente, A. Serebrenik, On the aban- donment and survival of open source projects: An empirical investiga- tion, in: 2019 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Soft- ware Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–12. doi:10.1109/ESEM.2019.8870181

    work page doi:10.1109/esem.2019.8870181 2019

  9. [9]

    S. Park, R. Kwon, G. Kwon, Assessing open source software survivability using kaplan-meier survival function and polynomial regression, in: Pro- ceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2024, pp. 2470–2471.doi:10.1145/3691620. 3695333

    work page doi:10.1145/3691620 2024

  10. [10]

    Borges, A

    H. Borges, A. Hora, M. T. Valente, Understanding the factors that impact the popularity of github repositories, in: 2016 IEEE International Confer- ence on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), IEEE, 2016, pp. 334–344.doi:10.1109/ICSME.2016.31. 17

    work page doi:10.1109/icsme.2016.31 2016

  11. [11]

    Dabbish, C

    L. Dabbish, C. Stuart, J. Tsay, J. Herbsleb, Social coding in github: trans- parency and collaboration in an open software repository, in: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2012, pp. 1277–1286.doi:10.1145/2145204.2145396

    work page doi:10.1145/2145204.2145396 2012

  12. [12]

    Fitzgerald, The transformation of open source software, MIS Quarterly 30 (3) (2006) 587–598.doi:10.2307/25148740

    B. Fitzgerald, The transformation of open source software, MIS Quarterly 30 (3) (2006) 587–598.doi:10.2307/25148740

    work page doi:10.2307/25148740 2006

  13. [13]

    Pinto, I

    G. Pinto, I. Steinmacher, M. A. Gerosa, More common than you think: An in-depth study of casual contributors, in: 2016 IEEE 23rd Interna- tional Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER), V ol. 1, IEEE, 2016, pp. 112–123.doi:10.1109/SANER. 2016.68

    work page doi:10.1109/saner 2016

  14. [14]

    Borges, M

    H. Borges, M. T. Valente, What’s in a github star? understanding reposi- tory starring practices in a social coding platform, Journal of Systems and Software 146 (2018) 112–129.doi:10.1016/j.jss.2018.09.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2018.09.016 2018

  15. [15]

    E. Dias, P. Meirelles, F. Castor, I. Steinmacher, I. Wiese, G. Pinto, What makes a great maintainer of open source projects?, in: 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), IEEE, 2021, pp. 982–994.doi:10.1109/ICSE43902.2021.00093

    work page doi:10.1109/icse43902.2021.00093 2021

  16. [16]

    H. He, H. Yang, P. Burckhardt, A. Kapravelos, B. Vasilescu, C. Kästner, Six million (suspected) fake stars on github: A growing spiral of popularity contests, spam, and malware, in: Proceedings of the 48th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’26), 2026. URLhttps://cmustrudel.github.io/papers/ icse2026fakestars.pdf

    2026

  17. [17]

    Eghbal, Working in Public: The Making and Maintenance of Open Source Software, Stripe Press, San Francisco, California, 2020

    N. Eghbal, Working in Public: The Making and Maintenance of Open Source Software, Stripe Press, San Francisco, California, 2020. URLhttps://books.google.co.in/books?id=zxjBEAAAQBAJ

    2020

  18. [18]

    Sutanto, A

    J. Sutanto, A. Kankanhalli, B. C. Tan, Uncovering the relationship be- tween oss user support networks and oss popularity, Decision Support Systems 64 (2014) 142–151.doi:10.1016/j.dss.2014.05.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dss.2014.05.014 2014

  19. [19]

    Hunter-Zinck, A

    H. Hunter-Zinck, A. F. De Siqueira, V . N. Vásquez, R. Barnes, C. C. Martinez, Ten simple rules on writing clean and reliable open-source sci- entific software, PLoS Computational Biology 17 (11) (2021) e1009481. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009481

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009481 2021

  20. [20]

    H. M. Imran, S. Rehman, S. Khan, R. ul Hasnain, M. H. A. Hussaini, The impact of code readability on software maintenance efficiency in open source development, The Asian Bulletin of Big Data Management 5 (1) (2025) 113–122.doi:10.62019/abbdm.v5i1.300

    work page doi:10.62019/abbdm.v5i1.300 2025

  21. [21]

    Aggarwal, A

    K. Aggarwal, A. Hindle, E. Stroulia, Co-evolution of project documen- tation and popularity within github, in: Proceedings of the 11th Work- ing Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2014), Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, 2014, pp. 360–363.doi:10.1145/ 2597073.2597120

    work page arXiv 2014

  22. [22]

    S. Koch, D. Klein, M. Johns, The fault in our stars: An analysis of github stars as an importance metric for web source code, in: Workshop on Measurements, Attacks, and Defenses for the Web (MADWeb), 2024. doi:10.14722/madweb.2024.23004

    work page doi:10.14722/madweb.2024.23004 2024

  23. [23]

    Maldeniya, C

    D. Maldeniya, C. Budak, L. P. Robert Jr, D. M. Romero, Herding a del- uge of good samaritans: How github projects respond to increased atten- tion, in: Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020, 2020, pp. 2055–2065. doi:10.1145/3366423.3380272

    work page doi:10.1145/3366423.3380272 2020

  24. [24]

    U. Fatima, Developer social networks/open-source project networks – how programmers use github, Master’s thesis, Lappeenranta–Lahti Uni- versity of Technology LUT, Lappeenranta, Finland, in co-operation with partner University: Aalborg University (Copenhagen) (2025). URLhttps://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2025062472992

    2025

  25. [25]

    Linåker, G

    J. Linåker, G. Link, K. Lumbard, Sustaining maintenance labor for healthy open source software projects through human infrastructure: A maintainer perspective, in: Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE Interna- tional Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2024, pp. 37–48.doi:10.1145/3674805.3686667

    work page doi:10.1145/3674805.3686667 2024

  26. [26]

    T. R. Tulili, A. Rastogi, A. Capiluppi, Exploring turnover, retention and growth in an oss ecosystem, in: Proceedings of the 29th Interna- tional Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineer- ing, 2025, pp. 887–897.doi:10.1145/3756681.3757050

    work page doi:10.1145/3756681.3757050 2025

  27. [27]

    InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW 2015)

    I. Steinmacher, T. Conte, M. A. Gerosa, D. Redmiles, Social barriers faced by newcomers placing their first contribution in open source soft- ware projects, in: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 2015, pp. 1379–1392. doi:10.1145/2675133.2675215

    work page doi:10.1145/2675133.2675215 2015

  28. [28]

    Steinmacher, M

    I. Steinmacher, M. A. G. Silva, M. A. Gerosa, Barriers faced by new- comers to open source projects: a systematic review, in: IFIP Interna- tional Conference on Open Source Systems, Springer, 2014, pp. 153–163. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-55128-4_21

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-55128-4_21 2014

  29. [29]

    R. P. L. Buse, W. R. Weimer, Learning a metric for code readability, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 36 (4) (2010) 546–558.doi:10. 1109/TSE.2009.70

    2010

  30. [30]

    Wang, Survival factors for free open source software projects: A multi- stage perspective, European Management Journal 30 (4) (2012) 352–371

    J. Wang, Survival factors for free open source software projects: A multi- stage perspective, European Management Journal 30 (4) (2012) 352–371. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2012.03.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.emj.2012.03.001 2012

  31. [31]

    Kaushik, K

    M. Kaushik, K. K. Chahal, Community engagement and the lifespan of open-source software projects, Information and Software Technology 189 (2026) 107914.doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2025.107914. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2025.107914

    work page doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2025.107914 2026

  32. [32]

    Joblin, S

    M. Joblin, S. Apel, How do successful and failed projects differ? a socio-technical analysis, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 31 (4) (2022) 67:1–67:24.doi:10.1145/3504003

    work page doi:10.1145/3504003 2022

  33. [33]

    Dabic, E

    O. Dabic, E. Aghajani, G. Bavota, Sampling projects in github for msr studies, in: Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/ACM 18th International Con- ference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2021), Institute of Elec- trical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2021, pp. 560–564.doi:10.1109/ MSR52588.2021.00074

    work page arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Jiang, D

    J. Jiang, D. Lo, J. He, X. Xia, P. S. Kochhar, L. Zhang, Why and how de- velopers fork what from whom in github, Empirical Software Engineering 22 (1) (2017) 547–578.doi:10.1007/s10664-016-9436-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-016-9436-6 2017

  35. [35]

    T. Xia, W. Fu, R. Shu, R. Agrawal, T. Menzies, Predicting health in- dicators for open source projects (using hyperparameter optimization), Empirical Software Engineering 27 (6) (2022) 122.doi:10.1007/ s10664-022-10171-0

    2022

  36. [36]

    Robles, J

    G. Robles, J. Gamalielsson, B. Lundell, C. Brax, T. Persson, A. Mattsson, T. Gustavsson, J. Feist, J. Öberg, A comparative analysis of industrial involvement and licensing in the open source software ecosystems of four iot standards, Journal of Systems and Software (2025) 112708doi:10. 1016/j.jss.2025.112708

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Human-centred learning analytics and ai in education: A systematic literature review.Computers and Education: Ar- tificial Intelligence, 6:100215, 2024

    V . Midha, P. Palvia, Factors affecting the success of open source software, Journal of Systems and Software 85 (2012) 895–905.doi:10.1016/J. JSS.2011.11.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2012

  38. [38]

    M. Zhou, A. Mockus, What make long term contributors: Willingness and opportunity in oss community, in: 2012 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), IEEE, 2012, pp. 518–528.doi:10.1109/ ICSE.2012.6227164

    work page arXiv 2012

  39. [39]

    R. Sen, S. S. Singh, S. Borle, Open source software success: Measures and analysis, Decision Support Systems 52 (2012) 364–372.doi:10. 1016/J.DSS.2011.09.003

    2012

  40. [40]

    T. F. Bissyandé, F. Thung, D. Lo, L. Jiang, L. Réveillère, Popular- ity, interoperability, and impact of programming languages in 100,000 open source projects, in: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 36th Interna- tional Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE, 2013, pp. 1063–1072. doi:10.1109/ICSE.2013.6606637

    work page doi:10.1109/icse.2013.6606637 2013

  41. [41]

    Hoffmann, F

    M. Hoffmann, F. Nagle, Y . Zhou, The value of open source software, Working Paper 24-038, Harvard Business School Strategy Unit (1 2024). doi:10.2139/ssrn.4693148. URLhttps://ssrn.com/abstract=4693148

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.4693148 2024

  42. [42]

    O’Grady, Redmonk programming language rankings: Jan- uary 2025,https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2025/06/18/ language-rankings-1-25/, accessed May 2026 (1 2025)

    S. O’Grady, Redmonk programming language rankings: Jan- uary 2025,https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2025/06/18/ language-rankings-1-25/, accessed May 2026 (1 2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    Bosch, P

    M. Bosch, P. Genevès, N. Layaïda, Automated refactoring for size re- duction of css style sheets, in: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Document Engineering (DocEng), ACM, 2014, pp. 123–132.doi: 10.1145/2644866.2644885

    work page doi:10.1145/2644866.2644885 2014

  44. [44]

    Rebouças, G

    M. Rebouças, G. Pinto, A. Serebrenik, F. Castor, F. Ebert, W. Tor- res, An empirical study on the usage of the swift programming lan- guage, in: 2016 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Anal- ysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER), IEEE, 2016, pp. 634–643. doi:10.1109/SANER.2016.66

    work page doi:10.1109/saner.2016.66 2016

  45. [45]

    SonarSource, Swift programming language overview, https://www.sonarsource.com/resources/library/ swift-programming-language/, accessed October 2025 (2021)

    2025

  46. [46]

    Decan, T

    A. Decan, T. Mens, P. Grosjean, An empirical comparison of depen- dency network evolution in seven software packaging ecosystems, Em- pirical Software Engineering 24 (1) (2019) 381–416.doi:10.1007/ s10664-017-9589-y. 18

    2019

  47. [47]

    Evangelopoulos, A

    N. Evangelopoulos, A. Sidorova, S. Fotopoulos, I. Chengalur-Smith, De- termining process death based on censored activity data, Communica- tions in Statistics—Simulation and Computation 37 (8) (2008) 1647– 1662.doi:10.1080/03610910802140224

    work page doi:10.1080/03610910802140224 2008

  48. [48]

    Calefato, M

    F. Calefato, M. A. Gerosa, G. Iaffaldano, F. Lanubile, I. Steinmacher, Will you come back to contribute? investigating the inactivity of oss core developers in github, Empirical Software Engineering (2022).doi:10. 1007/s10664-021-10012-6

    2022

  49. [49]

    Z. Liao, B. Zhao, S. Liu, H. Jin, D. He, L. Yang, Y . Zhang, J. Wu, A prediction model of the project life-span in open source software ecosystem, Mobile Networks and Applications 24 (2019) 1382–1391. doi:10.1007/s11036-018-0993-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11036-018-0993-3 2019

  50. [50]

    M. U. Karakaplan, L. Kutlu, M. G. Tsionas, A solution to log of depen- dent variables with negative observations, Journal of Productivity Analy- sis 54 (2) (2020) 107–119.doi:10.1007/s11123-020-00587-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11123-020-00587-5 2020

  51. [51]

    E. U. Ohaegbulem, V . C. Iheaka, On remedying the presence of het- eroscedasticity in a multiple linear regression modelling, African Jour- nal of Mathematics and Statistics Studies 7 (2) (2024) 225–261.doi: 10.52589/AJMSS-TJ9XI8HD

    work page doi:10.52589/ajmss-tj9xi8hd 2024

  52. [52]

    Prechelt, An empirical comparison of seven programming languages, Computer 33 (10) (2002) 23–29.doi:10.1109/2.876288

    L. Prechelt, An empirical comparison of seven programming languages, Computer 33 (10) (2002) 23–29.doi:10.1109/2.876288

    work page doi:10.1109/2.876288 2002

  53. [53]

    Fakhoury, D

    S. Fakhoury, D. Roy, A. Hassan, V . Arnaoudova, Improving source code readability: Theory and practice, in: 2019 IEEE/ACM 27th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC), IEEE, 2019, pp. 2–12. doi:10.1109/ICPC.2019.00014

    work page doi:10.1109/icpc.2019.00014 2019

  54. [54]

    Mohan, N

    A. Mohan, N. Gold, Programming style changes in evolving source code, in: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension, IEEE, 2004, pp. 236–240.doi:10.1109/WPC.2004. 1311066

    work page doi:10.1109/wpc.2004 2004

  55. [55]

    Stegeman, E

    M. Stegeman, E. Barendsen, S. Smetsers, Towards an empirically vali- dated model for assessment of code quality, in: Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, 2014, pp. 99–108.doi:10.1145/2674683.2674702

    work page doi:10.1145/2674683.2674702 2014

  56. [56]

    GitHub Documentation, About the repository readme file,https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/ managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/ customizing-your-repository/about-readmes, accessed: November 1, 2025 (2025)

    2025

  57. [57]

    Wiggins, K

    A. Wiggins, K. Crowston, Reclassifying success and tragedy in floss projects, in: IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems, Springer, 2010, pp. 294–307.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13244-5_ 23

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13244-5_ 2010

  58. [58]

    Subramaniam, R

    C. Subramaniam, R. Sen, M. L. Nelson, Determinants of open source software project success: A longitudinal study, Decision Support Systems 46 (2) (2009) 576–585.doi:10.1016/j.dss.2008.10.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dss.2008.10.005 2009

  59. [59]

    R. Sen, M. Nelson, C. Subramaniam, Application of survival model to un- derstand open source software release, Pacific Asia Journal of the Asso- ciation for Information Systems 7 (2) (2015) 1.doi:10.17705/1pais. 07201

    work page doi:10.17705/1pais 2015

  60. [60]

    C. M. Schweik, R. C. English, Internet Success: A Study of Open-Source Software Commons, The MIT Press, MIT Press, 2012. URLhttps://books.google.co.in/books?id=1tbxCwAAQBAJ

    2012

  61. [61]

    J. L. Moran, A. D. Bersten, P. J. Solomon, C. Edibam, T. Hunt, Aus- tralian, N. Z. I. C. S. C. T. Group, Modelling survival in acute severe illness: Cox versus accelerated failure time models, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 14 (1) (2008) 83–93.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753. 2007.00806.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753 2008

  62. [62]

    Qi, Comparison of proportional hazards and accelerated failure time models, Ph.D

    J. Qi, Comparison of proportional hazards and accelerated failure time models, Ph.D. thesis, University of Saskatchewan (2009). URLhttps://hdl.handle.net/10388/etd-03302009-140638

    2009

  63. [63]

    J. Orbe, E. Ferreira, V . Núñez-Antón, Comparing proportional hazards and accelerated failure time models for survival analysis, Statistics in Medicine 21 (22) (2002) 3493–3510.doi:10.1002/sim.1251

    work page doi:10.1002/sim.1251 2002

  64. [64]

    T. A. Louis, Nonparametric analysis of an accelerated failure time model, Biometrika 68 (2) (1981) 381–390.doi:10.1093/biomet/68.2.381

    work page doi:10.1093/biomet/68.2.381 1981

  65. [65]

    Patel, R

    K. Patel, R. Kay, L. Rowell, Comparing proportional hazards and accel- erated failure time models: an application in influenza, Pharmaceutical Statistics: The Journal of Applied Statistics in the Pharmaceutical Indus- try 5 (3) (2006) 213–224.doi:10.1002/pst.213

    work page doi:10.1002/pst.213 2006

  66. [66]

    E. L. Kaplan, P. Meier, Nonparametric estimation from incomplete obser- vations, Journal of the American Statistical Association 53 (282) (1958) 457–481.doi:10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452

    work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452 1958

  67. [67]

    Pearl, Comment: Understanding Simpson’s Paradox, 1st Edition, Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2022, pp

    J. Pearl, Comment: Understanding Simpson’s Paradox, 1st Edition, Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2022, pp. 399– 412.doi:10.1145/3501714.3501738

    work page doi:10.1145/3501714.3501738 2022

  68. [68]

    Z. Li, Y . Yu, T. Wang, G. Yin, S. Li, H. Wang, Are you still working on this? an empirical study on pull request abandonment, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 48 (6) (2021) 2173–2188.doi:10.1109/TSE. 2021.3053403

    work page doi:10.1109/tse 2021

  69. [69]

    X. Xia, S. Zhao, X. Zhang, Z. Lou, W. Wang, F. Bi, Understanding the archived projects on github, in: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), IEEE, 2023, pp. 13–24.doi:10.1109/SANER56733.2023.00012

    work page doi:10.1109/saner56733.2023.00012 2023

  70. [70]

    Y . Shen, T. Wang, X. Zhang, Y . Zhang, C. Yang, Y . Yu, H. Wang, Are ex- ternal contributions important to project productivity in open source soft- ware? a deep insight based on issue entropy, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 9 (7) (2025) 1–26.doi:10.1145/ 3757399

    2025

  71. [71]

    Kaushik, K

    M. Kaushik, K. K. Chahal, The death spiral of open source projects: A post-mortem analysis of pull request workflow dynamics, Journal of Sys- tems and Software 240 (2026) 112942.doi:10.1016/j.jss.2026. 112942

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2026 2026

  72. [72]

    Puhlfürß, L

    T. Puhlfürß, L. Montgomery, W. Maalej, An exploratory study of doc- umentation strategies for product features in popular github projects, in: 2022 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), IEEE, 2022, pp. 379–383.doi:10.1109/ ICSME55016.2022.00043

    work page arXiv 2022

  73. [73]

    Aghajani, C

    E. Aghajani, C. Nagy, O. L. Vega-Márquez, M. Linares-Vásquez, L. Moreno, G. Bavota, M. Lanza, Software documentation issues un- veiled, in: 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1199–1210.doi:10.1109/ICSE. 2019.00122

    work page doi:10.1109/icse 2019

  74. [74]

    W. S. Tan, M. Wagner, C. Treude, Wait, wasn’t that code here before? detecting outdated software documentation, in: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), IEEE, 2023, pp. 553–557.doi:10.1109/ICSME58846.2023.00071

    work page doi:10.1109/icsme58846.2023.00071 2023

  75. [75]

    Dagenais, M

    B. Dagenais, M. P. Robillard, Creating and evolving developer documen- tation: understanding the decisions of open source contributors, in: Pro- ceedings of the 18th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foun- dations of Software Engineering, 2010, pp. 127–136.doi:10.1145/ 1882291.1882312

    work page arXiv 2010

  76. [76]

    Kaushik, K

    M. Kaushik, K. K. Chahal, Beyond speed: Engagement sustains lifes- pan, Software: Practice and Experience 56 (6) (2026) 758–785.doi: 10.1002/spe.70068. 19

    work page doi:10.1002/spe.70068 2026