Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Characterizing Bugs in Python and R Data Analytics Programs

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2306.08632 v1 pith:7DQZRBUF submitted 2023-06-14 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords bugspythondataanalyticslibrariespackagessignificantlywhat
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

R and Python are among the most popular languages used in many critical data analytics tasks. However, we still do not fully understand the capabilities of these two languages w.r.t. bugs encountered in data analytics tasks. What type of bugs are common? What are the main root causes? What is the relation between bugs and root causes? How to mitigate these bugs? We present a comprehensive study of 5,068 Stack Overflow posts, 1,800 bug fix commits from GitHub repositories, and several GitHub issues of the most used libraries to understand bugs in R and Python. Our key findings include: while both R and Python have bugs due to inexperience with data analysis, Python see significantly larger data preprocessing bugs compared to R. Developers experience significantly more data flow bugs in R because intermediate results are often implicit. We also found changes and bugs in packages and libraries cause more bugs in R compared to Python while package or library misselection and conflicts cause more bugs in Python than R. While R has a slightly higher readability barrier for data analysts, the statistical power of R leads to a less number of bad performance bugs. In terms of data visualization, R packages have significantly more bugs than Python libraries. We also identified a strong correlation between comparable packages in R and Python despite their linguistic and methodological differences. Lastly, we contribute a large dataset of manually verified R and Python bugs.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. From Discussion to Execution: Replicating Buggy and Correct Data Science Code

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reprodgen reconstructs executable buggy-patched code pairs from Q&A posts, reaching about 58% LLM-judged buggy-code success and 52% patched-code success on a new 176-program benchmark.

Pith tools