Self-Admitted Technical Debt (SATD) is primarily studied in Object-Oriented (OO) languages and traditionally commercial software. However, scientific software coded in dynamically-typed languages such as R differs in paradigm, and the source code comments’ semantics are different (i.e., more aligned with algorithms and statistics when compared to traditional software). Additionally, many Software Engineering topics are understudied in scientific software development, with SATD detection remaining a challenge for this domain. This gap adds complexity since prior works determined SATD in scientific software does not adjust to many of the keywords identified for OO SATD, possibly hindering its automated detection. Therefore, we investigated how classification models (traditional machine learning, deep neural networks, and deep neural Pre-Trained Language Models (PTMs)) automatically detect SATD in R packages. This study aims to study the capabilities of these models to classify different TD types in this domain and manually analyze the causes of each in a representative sample. Our results show that PTMs (i.e., RoBERTa) outperform other models and work well when the number of comments labelled as a particular SATD type has low occurrences. We also found that some SATD types are more challenging to detect. We manually identified sixteen causes, including eight new causes detected by our study. The most common cause was failure to remember, in agreement with previous studies. These findings will help the R package authors automatically identify SATD in their source code and improve their code quality. In the future, checklists for R developers can also be developed by scientific communities such as rOpenSci to guarantee a higher quality of packages before submission.

Neural networks are getting increasingly popular thanks to their exceptional performance in solving many real-world problems. At the same time, they are shown to be vulnerable to attacks, difficult to debug and subject to fairness issues. To improve people’s trust in the technology, it is often necessary to provide some human-understandable explanation of neural networks’ decisions, e.g., why is that my loan application is rejected whereas hers is approved? That is, the stakeholder would be interested to minimize the chances of not being able to explain the decision consistently and would like to know how often and how easy it is to explain the decisions of a neural network before it is deployed. In this work, we provide two measurements on the decision explainability of neural networks. Afterwards, we develop algorithms for evaluating the measurements of user-provided neural networks automatically. We evaluate our approach on multiple neural network models trained on benchmark datasets. The results show that existing neural networks’ decisions often have low explainability according to our measurements. This is in line with the observation that adversarial samples can be easily generated through adversarial perturbation, which are often hard to explain. Our further experiments show that the decisions of the models trained with robust training are not necessarily easier to explain, whereas decisions of the models retrained with samples generated by our algorithms are easier to explain.