Tangled code changes, commits that conflate unrelated modifications such as bug fixes, refactorings, and enhancements, introduce significant noise into bug datasets and adversely affect the performance of bug prediction models. Addressing this issue at a fine-grained, method-level granularity remains unexplored. This is critical to address, as recent bug prediction models, driven by practitioner demand, are increasingly focusing on finer granularity rather than traditional class- or file-level predictions. This study investigates the utility of Large Language Models (LLMs) for detecting tangled code changes by leveraging both commit messages and method-level code diffs. We formulate the problem as a binary classification task and evaluate multiple prompting strategies, including zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought prompting, using state-of-the-art proprietary LLMs such as GPT-5 and Gemini-2.0-Flash, and open-source models such as GPT-OSS-120B and CodeBERT.

R Markdown files are examples of literate programming documents that combine R code with results and explanations. Such dynamic documents are designed to execute easily and reproduce study results. However, little is known about the executability of R Markdown files which can cause frustration among its users who intend to reuse the document. This paper presents a large-scale study on the executability of R Markdown files collected from GitHub. Results from our study show that a significant number of R Markdown files (64.95%) are not executable, even after our best efforts. To better understand the challenges, we categorize the exceptions encountered while executing the documents into different categories. Finally, we develop a classifier to determine which Markdown files are likely to be executable. Such a classifier can be utilized by search engines in their ranking which helps developers to find literate programming documents as learning resources.

It is common practice to discretize continuous defect counts into defective and non-defective classes and use them as a target variable when building defect classifiers (discretized classifiers). However, this discretization of continuous defect counts leads to information loss that might affect the performance and interpretation of defect classifiers. Another possible approach to build defect classifiers is through the use of regression models then discretizing the predicted defect counts into defective and non-defective classes (regression-based classifiers). In this paper, we compare the performance and interpretation of defect classifiers that are built using both approaches (i.e., discretized classifiers and regression-based classifiers) across six commonly used machine learning classifiers (i.e., linear/logistic regression, random forest, KNN, SVM, CART, and neural networks) and 17 datasets. We find that: i) Random forest based classifiers outperform other classifiers (best AUC) for both classifier building approaches, ii) In contrast to common practice, building a defect classifier using discretized defect counts (i.e., discretized classifiers) does not always lead to better performance. Hence we suggest that future defect classification studies should consider building regression-based classifiers (in particular when the defective ratio of the modeled dataset is low). Moreover, we suggest that both approaches for building defect classifiers should be explored, so the best-performing classifier can be used when determining the most influential features.