mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

What Characteristics Make ChatGPT Effective for Software Issue Resolution? An Empirical Study of Task, Project, and Conversational Signals in GitHub Issues

arXiv 2506.22390 ↗First posted 27 Jun 2025cs.SEcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Conversational large-language models are extensively used for issue resolution tasks. However, not all developer-LLM conversations are useful for effective issue resolution. In this paper, we analyze 686 developer-ChatGPT conversations shared within GitHub issue threads to identify characteristics that make these conversations effective for issue resolution. First, we analyze the conversations and their corresponding issues to distinguish helpful from unhelpful conversations. We begin by categorizing the types of tasks developers seek help with to better understand the scenarios in which ChatGPT is most effective. Next, we examine a wide range of conversational, project, and issue-related metrics to uncover factors associated with helpful conversations. Finally, we identify common deficiencies in unhelpful ChatGPT responses to highlight areas that could inform the design of more effective developer-facing tools. We found that only 62% of the ChatGPT conversations were helpful for successful issue resolution. ChatGPT is most effective for code generation and tools/libraries/APIs recommendations, but struggles with code explanations. Helpful conversations tend to be shorter, more readable, and exhibit stronger semantic and linguistic alignment. Larger, more popular projects and more experienced developers benefit more from ChatGPT. At the issue level, ChatGPT performs best on simpler problems with limited developer activity and faster resolution, typically well-scoped tasks like compilation errors. The most common deficiencies in unhelpful ChatGPT responses include incorrect information and lack of comprehensiveness. Our findings have wide implications including guiding developers on effective interaction strategies for issue resolution, informing the development of tools or frameworks to support optimal prompt design, and providing insights on fine-tuning LLMs for issue resolution tasks.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 27 Jun 2025.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 5.

6 papers.