Bug Analysis in Jupyter Notebook Projects: An Empirical Study

1Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Computational notebooks, such as Jupyter, have been widely adopted by data scientists to write code for analyzing and visualizing data. Despite their growing adoption and popularity, few studies have been found to understand Jupyter development challenges from the practitioners’ point of view. This article presents a systematic study of bugs and challenges that Jupyter practitioners face through a large-scale empirical investigation. We mined 14,740 commits from 105 GitHub open source projects with Jupyter Notebook code. Next, we analyzed 30,416 StackOverflow posts, which gave us insights into bugs that practitioners face when developing Jupyter Notebook projects. Next, we conducted 19 interviews with data scientists to uncover more details about Jupyter bugs and to gain insight into Jupyter developers’ challenges. Finally, to validate the study results and proposed taxonomy, we conducted a survey with 91 data scientists. We highlight bug categories, their root causes, and the challenges that Jupyter practitioners face.

References Powered by Scopus

The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data

60187Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Data science and prediction

635Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Knowledge Solutions: Tools, Methods, and Approaches to Drive Organizational Performance

561Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Multiverse Notebook: Shifting Data Scientists to Time Travelers

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

de Santana, T. L., da Mota Silveira Neto, P. A., de Almeida, E. S., & Ahmed, I. (2024). Bug Analysis in Jupyter Notebook Projects: An Empirical Study. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 33(4). https://doi.org/10.1145/3641539

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 2

67%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

33%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 2

40%

Social Sciences 1

20%

Psychology 1

20%

Materials Science 1

20%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free