What Do Users Ask in Open-Source AI Repositories? An Empirical Study of GitHub Issues
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Artificial Intelligence systems, which benefit from the availability of large-scale datasets and increasing computational power, have become effective solutions to various critical tasks, such as natural language understanding, speech recognition, and image processing. The advancement of these AI systems is inseparable from open-source software (OSS). This paper presents an empirical study that investigates the issues in the repositories of open-source AI repositories to assist developers in understanding problems during the process of employing AI systems. We collect 576 repositories from the PapersWithCode platform. Among these repositories, we find 24,953 issues by utilizing GitHub REST APIs. Our empirical study includes three phases. First, we manually analyze these issues to categorize the problems that developers are likely to encounter in open-source AI repositories. Specifically, we provide a taxonomy of 13 categories related to AI systems. The two most common issues are runtime errors (23.18%) and unclear instructions (19.53%). Second, we see that 67.5% of issues are closed. We also find that half of these issues resolve within four days. Moreover, issue management features, e.g., label and assign, are not widely adopted in open-source AI repositories. In particular, only 7.81% and 5.9% of repositories label issues and assign these issues to assignees, respectively. Finally, we empirically show that employing GitHub issue management features and writing issues with detailed descriptions facilitate the resolution of issues. Based on our findings, we make recommendations for developers to help better manage the issues of open-source AI repositories and improve their quality.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 17 Mar 2023.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 3; 2025: 1; 2026: 3.
8 papers.
- 2024PeaTMOSS: A Dataset and Initial Analysis of Pre-Trained Models in Open-Source Softwarecited by 9
- 2026REAgent: Requirement-Driven LLM Agents for Software Issue Resolutioncited by 4
- 2024Demystifying Issues, Causes and Solutions in LLM Open-Source Projectscited by 3
- 2026AgentChaos: Chaos Engineering for Agent Systems via Programmatic Fault Injectioncited by 2
- 2023PeaTMOSS: Mining Pre-Trained Models in Open-Source Softwarecited by 1
- 2025Securing the AI Supply Chain: What Can We Learn From Developer-Reported Security Issues and Solutions of AI Projects?cited by 1
- 2026A Taxonomy of Runtime Faults in Model Context Protocol Serverscited by 1
- 2024Beyond Accuracy: An Empirical Study on Unit Testing in Open-source Deep Learning Projectscited by 0
- 2026AgentChaos: Chaos Engineering for Agent Systems via Programmatic Fault Injection7 Aug 2026
- 2026A Taxonomy of Runtime Faults in Model Context Protocol Servers3 Jun 2026
- 2026REAgent: Requirement-Driven LLM Agents for Software Issue Resolution8 Apr 2026
- 2025Securing the AI Supply Chain: What Can We Learn From Developer-Reported Security Issues and Solutions of AI Projects?29 Dec 2025
- 2024Demystifying Issues, Causes and Solutions in LLM Open-Source Projects25 Sep 2024
- 2024Beyond Accuracy: An Empirical Study on Unit Testing in Open-source Deep Learning Projects26 Feb 2024
- 2024PeaTMOSS: A Dataset and Initial Analysis of Pre-Trained Models in Open-Source Software1 Feb 2024
- 2023PeaTMOSS: Mining Pre-Trained Models in Open-Source Software5 Oct 2023