arxiv: 2605.12738 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 💻 cs.SE · cs.SI

Recognition: no theorem link

Project Life Cycles in Open-Source Software

Sanjiv Das , Andrii Ieroshenko , Piyush Jain , David Qiu , Michael Chin , Brian Granger

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 19:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE cs.SI

keywords open-source softwareproject life cyclesendogenous growth theorydeveloper engagementdifferential equationslifetime value estimation

0 comments

The pith

Open-source projects follow product life cycle dynamics that can be modeled with endogenous growth theory to estimate lifetime developer engagement and value.

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

This paper applies methods from product life cycles to model how developers engage with open-source projects over time. It incorporates endogenous growth theory through systems of differential equations to represent the interactions between project growth levels and developer activity. The resulting model solutions calibrate closely to data from many open-source projects. These calibrated models produce estimates of total lifetime developer engagement and growth. Such estimates in turn support calculations of the lifetime production value of open-source projects.

Core claim

Using methods previously applied to product life cycles, developer engagement is modeled through the project life cycle for open-source projects, revealing similar dynamics in a cross section of projects. Endogenous growth theory models the growth dynamics while incorporating interactions between growth levels and developer activity over time using systems of differential equations. The solution to this model calibrates well to many open-source projects and generates estimates of lifetime developer engagement and growth that support estimating lifetime production value.

What carries the argument

Systems of differential equations from endogenous growth theory that model the interactions between growth levels and developer activity across the project life cycle.

If this is right

Similar life cycle dynamics appear across a cross section of open-source projects.
The model produces estimates of lifetime developer engagement for individual projects.
These estimates enable calculation of lifetime production value for open-source projects.
Growth and engagement trajectories can be projected forward using the calibrated differential equations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The framework could help forecast when projects are likely to enter decline phases and guide maintenance priorities.
Lifetime value estimates might inform funding allocations or contributor incentives for specific projects.
The same modeling approach could be tested on closed-source or hybrid software development to compare life cycle patterns.

Load-bearing premise

Open-source projects exhibit dynamics similar to product life cycles and endogenous growth theory with systems of differential equations accurately captures interactions between growth levels and developer activity over time.

What would settle it

A large sample of open-source projects in which the calibrated solutions of the differential equations fail to match observed developer engagement curves over the project lifetime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12738 by Andrii Ieroshenko, Brian Granger, David Qiu, Michael Chin, Piyush Jain, Sanjiv Das.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Plot of the cumulative lines of code changed (top plot) and the number of contributors (bottom plot) since the inception of the pandas library in 2009. Lines added and deleted are counted as work done on the repository. The dots represent the effect of each commit. A second-order polynomial trend line was fitted to the code changes data, resulting in the following best-fit equation: A(t) = 1.79 × 10−2 t + … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Plot of the developer engagement since the inception of the pandas library in 2009. The fitted line uses the solution in the equations above where it is determined that p = 0.00084, q = 0.02686, and m = 9448. IV. CALIBRATING DEVELOPER ENGAGEMENT AND GROWTH TO DATA We download all commits in a project from GitHub and count the number of lines added and deleted in each commit, from the inception of the proje… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: For the pandas library, the plot shows the fit against the raw data after calibrating the ODE of the Cobb-Douglas model to the data. Best-fit parameters: γ = 601657.05, λ = 1.301, ϕ = −0.552. Time periods are months. respect to developer engagement and project growth levels. The sign of these parameters informs us about how the project responds to infusions of each resource. For calibration, we minimize th… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Extrapolation of the solution for the pandas repository till its maturation, which is defined as engagement dropping to half a developer per month. The phase diagram shows the interaction between L and A, and we can see that as the project matures, growth grows without the need for a large number of additional contributors. TABLE II FITTED PARAMETERS OF THE DEVELOPER MODEL IN SECTION III. THE START DATE AN… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Developer engagement on open-source projects over time, see also Table II. Engagement is measured as the number of developers who commit code each month. The engagement plots have a dashed line that starts end January 2025 and shows the projected future trajectory of developers engaging until the maturation of the project. The bottom plot shows the same data normalized using the mathematical results in Sec… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Model calibration I: The plots show the fitted values to developer engagement data (left) and cumulative growth (right). The actual data is shown alongside the fitted data when the fit is undertaken using both, the entire data sample and the first 75% of the data available for each project [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Model calibration II: The plots show the fitted values to developer engagement data (left) and cumulative growth (right). The actual data is shown alongside the fitted data when the fit is undertaken using both, the entire data sample and the first 75% of the data available for each project [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The ratio of PyPi downloads to lines of code changed (additions and deletions). These ratios are determined by dividing the total downloads over the past 6 months by the total lines of code added and deleted over the same time frame. These ratios offer insight into the usefulness of projects to the community around them for the degree of effort invested by developers. Project Repo PyPi package 6mo download… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Using methods previously applied to product life cycles, this paper models developer engagement through the project life cycle for open-source projects, and detects similar dynamics in a cross section of projects. Endogenous growth theory is used to model growth dynamics in open-source software engineering, while incorporating the interactions between growth levels and developer activity over time using systems of differential equations. The solution to this model calibrates well to many open-source projects. The model generates an estimate of the lifetime developer engagement and growth, which supports estimating a lifetime production value 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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper applies endogenous growth DEs to OSS project life cycles and claims the solutions calibrate well for lifetime engagement estimates, but the abstract supplies no data, fitting procedure, or validation metrics to support that.

read the letter

The core move here is taking established product life-cycle methods and endogenous growth differential equations, then fitting them to developer activity in open-source projects to generate lifetime engagement and value numbers. That domain application is new, and the idea of treating OSS growth as an interacting system of activity and developer stock is a reasonable extension of the economic toolkit. If the full paper shows stable parameters across a broad set of projects and some out-of-sample checks, it could give practitioners a quantitative way to think about project sustainability that goes beyond case studies. Credit for trying to make the model produce usable numbers rather than just qualitative curves. The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test flagged: the abstract asserts that the solution calibrates well and supports lifetime estimates, yet provides no project list, no commit or activity data source, no statement on whether parameters are global or project-specific, and no fit statistics or cross-validation. Without those, the claim that the dynamics are similar across projects stays an assumption rather than a demonstrated regularity, and the lifetime values risk being circular with the fitted data. The weakest link is the lack of evidence that the low-dimensional DE system actually captures the observed time series rather than just reproducing them after tuning. This paper is for readers who work on quantitative models of software ecosystems or OSS governance and are willing to dig into the empirical section. A serious referee could usefully press on the data and validation details; if those hold up, the work is worth the time. If the full manuscript still lacks them, it would need substantial revision before review.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper applies methods from product life-cycle analysis and endogenous growth theory to model developer engagement in open-source software projects via systems of differential equations. It claims that the resulting model detects similar dynamics across a cross-section of projects, calibrates well to observed data, and thereby supports estimates of lifetime developer engagement and production value.

Significance. If the calibration and validation claims hold with transparent data and metrics, the work could provide a quantitative framework for estimating long-term OSS project value by linking economic growth models to software engineering activity, potentially aiding sustainability assessments. The approach's strength would lie in its use of differential equations to capture endogenous interactions, but this remains unverified without empirical details.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'the solution to this model calibrates well to many open-source projects' is load-bearing for the paper's contribution, yet no project list, data sources (e.g., commit histories or activity metrics), fitting procedure, parameter estimation method (global vs. per-project), or quantitative validation metrics (R², error bounds, cross-validation) are reported, preventing verification of the claimed regularity.
[Abstract] Abstract: Lifetime developer engagement and growth estimates are generated directly from the calibrated parameters of the differential-equation system; this introduces circularity because the estimates reduce to quantities fitted to the same observed project data rather than independent or out-of-sample predictions, undermining the support for 'lifetime production value' claims.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract would benefit from explicit definition of key terms such as 'project life cycle' and 'endogenous growth theory' as applied here, to clarify how the differential-equation system is constructed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and detailed comments, which highlight important issues of transparency and methodological clarity. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of our calibration and estimation procedures.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'the solution to this model calibrates well to many open-source projects' is load-bearing for the paper's contribution, yet no project list, data sources (e.g., commit histories or activity metrics), fitting procedure, parameter estimation method (global vs. per-project), or quantitative validation metrics (R², error bounds, cross-validation) are reported, preventing verification of the claimed regularity.

Authors: We agree that the current abstract and main text do not provide sufficient detail for independent verification of the calibration results. The full manuscript describes data drawn from public GitHub repositories (commit histories, contributor activity, and issue metrics) for a cross-section of projects, with per-project nonlinear least-squares fitting of the differential-equation parameters. In the revised version we will add an explicit Data and Methods subsection that lists the projects analyzed, specifies the exact activity metrics used, describes the fitting algorithm and whether parameters are estimated globally or per project, and reports quantitative validation statistics including mean R² values, residual error bounds, and k-fold cross-validation results. This will directly address the verifiability concern. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: Lifetime developer engagement and growth estimates are generated directly from the calibrated parameters of the differential-equation system; this introduces circularity because the estimates reduce to quantities fitted to the same observed project data rather than independent or out-of-sample predictions, undermining the support for 'lifetime production value' claims.

Authors: We acknowledge the referee’s point that the lifetime estimates are derived from the same fitted parameters. However, the procedure is not circular in the usual sense: parameters are identified from finite observed time series, after which the differential equations are integrated to infinity to obtain the total lifetime engagement and value. This is standard practice in endogenous growth models. That said, we agree that stronger evidence of predictive validity would be valuable. In revision we will add an out-of-sample validation exercise (holding out the most recent 20 % of each project’s time series) together with sensitivity analyses on parameter uncertainty, and we will clarify the distinction between in-sample calibration and forward projection in the text. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Lifetime engagement estimates reduce to fitted calibration by construction

specific steps

fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
"The solution to this model calibrates well to many open-source projects. The model generates an estimate of the lifetime developer engagement and growth, which supports estimating a lifetime production value of open-source projects."

The lifetime engagement value is obtained by solving the calibrated DE system. Calibration fits parameters directly to the project's observed developer-activity time series; therefore the 'generated estimate' is a deterministic function of those fitted inputs and cannot constitute an independent prediction or first-principles result.

full rationale

The paper's core claim is that the endogenous-growth DE system 'calibrates well' to OSS projects and thereby 'generates an estimate of the lifetime developer engagement'. No independent derivation or out-of-sample test is supplied; the lifetime quantities are produced by solving the same system whose parameters were fitted to the observed activity series. This is the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern: the reported 'estimate' is definitionally the output of the calibration step rather than a separate prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of economic growth models to software development and the success of calibration to project data; no independent evidence for the model form is provided beyond the fit.

free parameters (1)

growth and interaction parameters
Calibrated to match observed developer engagement and growth levels in open-source projects.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Endogenous growth theory applies to developer activity dynamics in open-source projects
Invoked to model growth dynamics incorporating interactions between growth levels and developer activity.
standard math Systems of differential equations can represent the time evolution of project engagement
The model is constructed and solved as systems of differential equations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5388 in / 1447 out tokens · 45056 ms · 2026-05-14T19:45:23.826897+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[1]

Bals, F. (2024). 2024 Open Source Security and Risk Analysis Report ( OSSRA ) Synopsys . Technical report, Blackduck, Inc

2024
[2]

Bass, F. M. (1969). A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables . Management Science\/ 15\/ (5), 215--227. Publisher: INFORMS

1969
[3]

Bass, F. M., T. V. Krishnan, and D. C. Jain (1994). Why the Bass Model Fits without Decision Variables . Marketing Science\/ 13\/ (3), 203--223. Publisher: INFORMS

1994
[4]

Pätsch, S

Blind, K., S. Pätsch, S. Muto, M. Böhm, T. Schubert, P. Grzegorzewska, and A. Katz (2021). The impact of open source software and hardware on technological independence, competitiveness and innovation in the EU economy: final study report . Publications Office of the European Union

2021
[5]

Blind, K. and T. Schubert (2024, April). Estimating the GDP effect of Open Source Software and its complementarities with R & D and patents: evidence and policy implications. The Journal of Technology Transfer\/ 49\/ (2), 466--491

2024
[6]

Champion, K. and B. M. Hill (2021, March). Underproduction: An Approach for Measuring Risk in Open Source Software . In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis , Evolution and Reengineering ( SANER ) , pp.\ 388--399. arXiv:2103.00352 [cs]

work page arXiv 2021
[7]

(2023, March)

Chesbrough, H. (2023, March). Measuring the Economic Value of Open Source : A Survey and a Preliminary Analysis . Technical report, The Linux Foundation

2023
[8]

Fitzgerald, and S

Dey, T., B. Fitzgerald, and S. Daniel (2024, September). CROSS : A Contributor - Project Interaction Lifecycle Model for Open Source Software . arXiv:2409.08267 [cs]

work page arXiv 2024
[9]

Droesch, M., A. Karp, A. Sterman, and E. Kurzweil (2020, October). Measuring the engagement of an open source software community, https://www.bvp.com/atlas/measuring-the-engagement-of-an-open-source-software-community

2020
[10]

Champion, and S

Gaughan, M., K. Champion, and S. Hwang (2024, April). Engineering Formality and Software Risk in Debian Python Packages . arXiv:2403.05728 [cs]

work page arXiv 2024
[11]

Nagle, and Y

Hoffmann, M., F. Nagle, and Y. Zhou (2024). The Value of Open Source Software . SSRN Electronic Journal\/

2024
[12]

Madachy, D

Horowitz, E., R. Madachy, D. Reifer, B. Steece, and B. K. Clark (2001, January). Software Cost Estimation With Cocomo II \/ (HAR/CDR edition, Editor: Barry W. Boehm ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

2001
[13]

Peterson, C. (2018). How I coined the term 'open source' Opensource .com

2018
[14]

Measuring Intangible Assets and Their Contribution to Growth

Robbins, C. A., G. Korkmaz, L. Guci, J. B. S. Calderón, and B. L. Kramer (2021). A First Look at Open Source Software Investment in the United States and in Other Countries , 2009-2019. In IARIW - ESCoE Conference “ Measuring Intangible Assets and Their Contribution to Growth ” , London

2021
[15]

Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing Returns and Long - Run Growth . Journal of Political Economy\/ 94\/ (5), 1002--1037. Publisher: University of Chicago Press

1986
[16]

Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous Technological Change . Journal of Political Economy\/ 98\/ (5), S71--S102. Publisher: University of Chicago Press

1990
[17]

Romer, P. M. (1994). The Origins of Endogenous Growth . The Journal of Economic Perspectives\/ 8\/ (1), 3--22. Publisher: American Economic Association

1994
[18]

(2022, March)

Wladawsky-Berger, I. (2022, March). The Impact of Open Source on the EU Economy

2022
[19]

(2024, April)

Wladawsky-Berger, I. (2024, April). What’s the Value of Open Source Software Based on Actual Usage Data ?

2024