A ground-truth dataset and classification model for detecting bots in GitHub issue and PR comments
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Bots are frequently used in Github repositories to automate repetitive activities that are part of the distributed software development process. They communicate with human actors through comments. While detecting their presence is important for many reasons, no large and representative ground-truth dataset is available, nor are classification models to detect and validate bots on the basis of such a dataset. This paper proposes a ground-truth dataset, based on a manual analysis with high interrater agreement, of pull request and issue comments in 5,000 distinct Github accounts of which 527 have been identified as bots. Using this dataset we propose an automated classification model to detect bots, taking as main features the number of empty and non-empty comments of each account, the number of comment patterns, and the inequality between comments within comment patterns. We obtained a very high weighted average precision, recall and F1-score of 0.98 on a test set containing 40% of the data. We integrated the classification model into an open source command-line tool to allow practitioners to detect which accounts in a given Github repository actually correspond to bots.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 4; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 4.
10 papers.
- 2023From Commit Message Generation to History-Aware Commit Message Completioncited by 16
- 2025LAURA: Enhancing Code Review Generation with Context-Enriched Retrieval-Augmented LLMcited by 8
- 2024Leveraging Reviewer Experience in Code Review Comment Generationcited by 4
- 2023Predicting the First Response Latency of Maintainers and Contributors in Pull Requestscited by 3
- 2026Are We All Using Agents the Same Way? An Empirical Study of Core and Peripheral Developers Use of Coding Agentscited by 3
- 2026SWE-PRBench: Benchmarking AI Code Review Quality Against Pull Request Feedbackcited by 2
- 2023BotHawk: An Approach for Bots Detection in Open Source Software Projectscited by 1
- 2026On the Footprints of Reviewer Bots Feedback on Agentic Pull Requests in OSS GitHub Repositoriescited by 1
- 2023DevBots can co-design APIscited by 0
- 2026Detecting AI Coding Agents in Open Source: A Validated Multi-Method Census of 180 Million Repositoriescited by 0
- 2026Detecting AI Coding Agents in Open Source: A Validated Multi-Method Census of 180 Million Repositories23 Jun 2026
- 2026On the Footprints of Reviewer Bots Feedback on Agentic Pull Requests in OSS GitHub Repositories27 Apr 2026
- 2026SWE-PRBench: Benchmarking AI Code Review Quality Against Pull Request Feedback27 Mar 2026
- 2026Are We All Using Agents the Same Way? An Empirical Study of Core and Peripheral Developers Use of Coding Agents27 Jan 2026
- 2025LAURA: Enhancing Code Review Generation with Context-Enriched Retrieval-Augmented LLM1 Dec 2025
- 2024Leveraging Reviewer Experience in Code Review Comment Generation17 Sep 2024
- 2023DevBots can co-design APIs10 Dec 2023
- 2023Predicting the First Response Latency of Maintainers and Contributors in Pull Requests13 Nov 2023
- 2023From Commit Message Generation to History-Aware Commit Message Completion15 Aug 2023
- 2023BotHawk: An Approach for Bots Detection in Open Source Software Projects25 Jul 2023