The gaming industry has witnessed remarkable growth in recent years, attracting millions of people who engage in its products both as a hobby and for professional purposes (e.g., e-sports). Video games are software products that have a unique and fundamental requirement: They must be engaging. Previous research introduced approaches aimed at measuring engagement, some of which specifically designed for video games. Such approaches could be useful for practitioners since they can be adopted on the large collection of gameplay videos daily published on platforms such as Twitch and YouTube to allow developers to monitor players’ engagement and detect areas in which it is low. Such specialized approaches have been evaluated on datasets in which the engagement was manually assessed by external evaluators based on the face of the player (we call it perceived engagement). We still do not know whether such approaches can capture the real engagement of players. Also, it is unclear to what extent practitioners would be willing to adopt such approaches in practice. In this paper, we provide two contributions. First, we ran an experiment with human 40 players aimed at defining a dataset of gameplay sessions in which participants self-reported their real engagement after every minute. We captured both their face and the gameplay. Based on this data, we compared state-of-the-art machine learning-based approaches to detect lowly engaging sessions. Our results show that the best model correctly classifies engagement in 74.7% of the cases and ranks video games in terms of their real engagement very similarly to how players would rank them (Spearman ρ = 0.833). Second, to assess the practicality of adopting such approaches in an industrial setting, we conducted two semi-structured interviews with senior game developers, who provided generally positive feedback and interesting insights for future developments.

Issue labeling is a crucial task for the effective management of software projects. To date, several approaches have been put forth for the automatic assignment of labels to issue reports. In particular, supervised approaches based on the fine-tuning of BERT-like language models have been proposed, achieving state-of-the-art performance. More recently, decoder-only models such as GPT have become prominent in SE research due to their surprising capabilities to achieve state-of-the-art performance even for tasks they have not been trained for. To the best of our knowledge, GPT-like models have not been applied yet to the problem of issue classification, despite the promising results achieved for many other software engineering tasks. In this paper, we investigate to what extent we can leverage GPT-like LLMs to automate the issue labeling task. Our results demonstrate the ability of GPT-like models to correctly classify issue reports in the absence of labeled data that would be required to fine-tune BERT-like LLMs.

Self-Admitted Technical Debt (SATD) represents the admission, made through source code comments or other channels, of portions of a program being poorly implemented, containing provisional solutions or, in general, simply being not ready yet. To better understand developers' habits in SATD annotation, and possibly support their exploitation in tool support, this paper provides an in-depth analysis of the content provided in SATD comments, and the expressed sentiment. We manually inspect and classify 1038 instances from an existing dataset, grouping them along a taxonomy composed of 41 categories (of which 9 top-level ones), identifying their sentiment, and the presence of external references such as author names or issue IDs. Results of our study indicate that (i) the SATD content is crosscutting along life-cycle dimensions identified in previous work, (ii) comments related to functional problems or on-hold SATD are generally more negative than poor implementation choices or partially implemented functionality, and (iii) despite observations from previous literature, only a minority of SATD comments leverage external references.

In this paper, we address the problem of using sentiment analysis tools 'off-the-shelf', that is when a gold standard is not available for retraining. We evaluate the performance of four SE-specific tools in a cross-platform setting, i.e., on a test set collected from data sources different from the one used for training. We find that (i) the lexicon-based tools outperform the supervised approaches retrained in a cross-platform setting and (ii) retraining can be beneficial in within-platform settings in the presence of robust gold standard datasets, even using a minimal training set. Based on our empirical findings, we derive guidelines for reliable use of sentiment analysis tools in software engineering.

Software developers experience and share a wide range of emotions throughout a rich ecosystem of communication channels. A recent trend that has emerged in empirical software engineering studies is leveraging sentiment analysis of developers' communication traces. We release a dataset of 4,800 questions, answers, and comments from Stack Overflow, manually annotated for emotions. Our dataset contributes to the building of a shared corpus of annotated resources to support research on emotion awareness in software development.

A recent research trend has emerged to identify developers' emotions, by applying sentiment analysis to the content of communication traces left in collaborative development environments. Trying to overcome the limitations posed by using off-the-shelf sentiment analysis tools, researchers recently started to develop their own tools for the software engineering domain. In this paper, we report a benchmark study to assess the performance and reliability of three sentiment analysis tools specifically customized for software engineering. Furthermore, we offer a reflection on the open challenges, as they emerge from a qualitative analysis of misclassified texts.1

Emotional arousal increases activation and performance but may also lead to burnout in software development. We present the first version of a Software Engineering Arousal lexicon (SEA) that is specifically designed to address the problem of emotional arousal in the software developer ecosystem. SEA is built using a bootstrapping approach that combines word embedding model trained on issue-tracking data and manual scoring of items in the lexicon. We show that our lexicon is able to differentiate between issue priorities, which are a source of emotional activation and then act as a proxy for arousal. The best performance is obtained by combining SEA (428 words) with a previously created general purpose lexicon by Warriner et al. (13,915 words) and it achieves Cohen's d effect sizes up to 0.5.

Recent research has shown that drivers of success in online question answering encompass presentation quality as well as temporal and social aspects. Yet, we argue that also the emotional style of a technical contribution influences its perceived quality. In this paper, we investigate how Stack Overflow users can increase the chance of getting their answer accepted. We focus on actionable factors that can be acted upon by users when writing an answer and making comments. We found evidence that factors related to information presentation, time and affect all have an impact on the success of answers.

When visiting cities as tourists, most of the times people do not make very detailed plans and, when choosing where to go and what to seem they tend to select the area with the major number of interesting facilities. Therefore, it would be useful to support the user choice with contextual information presentation, information clustering and comparative explanations of places of potential interest in a given area. In this paper we illustrate how MyMap, a mobile recommender system in the Tourism domain, generates comparative descriptions to support users in making decisions about what to see, among relevant objects of interest.