Jaydeb Sarker

Toxic interactions in open-source software development harm community collaboration. To combat this, we propose ToxiShield, a realtime browser extension that identifies and detoxifies toxic code reviews. The framework comprises three modules: toxicity identification, reasoned multiclass classification, and code review detoxification. Our fine-tuned BERT-based binary classifier achieved a 97% F1-score on 38,761 code review texts. For multiclass classification, Claude 3.5 Sonnet with prompt engineering achieved a 39% MCC and 42% F1 on 1,200 samples. Finally, our fine-tuned Llama 3.2 detoxification model reached 95.27% style transfer accuracy, 97.03% fluency, 67.07% content preservation, and an 84% J-score. Validation with 10 software developers suggests ToxiShield effectively fosters a more inclusive open-source environment.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in open-source software (OSS) ecosystems, creating complex interactions among natural language prompts, probabilistic model outputs, and execution-capable components. However, it remains unclear whether traditional vulnerability disclosure frameworks adequately capture these model-mediated risks. To investigate this, we analyze 295 GitHub Security Advisories published between January 2025 and January 2026 that reference LLM-related components, and we manually annotate a sample of 100 advisories using the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025. We find no evidence of new implementation-level weakness classes specific to LLM systems. Most advisories map to established CWEs, particularly injection and deserialization weaknesses. At the same time, the OWASP-based analysis reveals recurring architectural risk patterns, especially Supply Chain, Excessive Agency, and Prompt Injection, which often co-occur across multiple stages of execution. These results suggest that existing advisory metadata captures code-level defects but underrepresents model-mediated exposure. We conclude that combining the CWE and OWASP perspectives provides a more complete and necessary view of vulnerabilities in LLM-integrated systems.

Toxic interactions during code reviews can undermine teamwork and hinder productivity in software engineering (SE) teams. While prior studies explore toxicity detection and empirical investigation, they lack real-time detoxification tools to support the SE community. To address this gap, we present ToxiShield, a browser extension for GitHub pull requests that is built using three modules: i) Toxicity Filter -- to identify whether a text is toxic, ii) Communication coach -- to facilitate just-in-time fine-grained toxicity categorization with explanations, and iii) The Reframer -- that generates a revised, constructive alternative of a toxic text. For each module, we trained and evaluated multiple deep learning and Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify the best choice. A BERT-based binary detection model, trained on 38,761 code review samples, achieves 98% accuracy and an F1-score of 97% and is the selected one for the Toxicity Filter module. For the Communication Coach, prompt-tuned Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved the best performance with 39% MCC and 42% F1 in multiclass toxicity classification with detailed reasoning. For Reframer, we evaluated five LLMs using a fine-tuning strategy on a dataset of 10,120 code review comments. The fine-tuned Llama 3.2 model achieves 95.27% style transfer accuracy, 97.03% fluency, 67.07% content preservation, and an 84% J-score. We further validated ToxiShield through a human evaluation using the Technology Acceptance Model with 10 participants, confirming its perceived usefulness and ease of adoption. ToxiShield sets a benchmark for advancing constructive communication in software engineering, driving inclusivity and healthier collaboration in open-source communities.

In an industry dominated by straight men, many developers representing other gender identities and sexual orientations often encounter hateful or discriminatory messages. Such communications pose barriers to participation for women and LGBTQ+ persons. Due to sheer volume, manual inspection of all communications for discriminatory communication is infeasible for a large-scale Free Open Source Software (FLOSS) community. To address this challenge, this study proposes an automated mechanism to identify Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discriminatory (SGID) texts in software developers’ communications. On this goal, we trained and evaluated SGID4SE (Sexual orientation and Gender Identity Discriminatory text identification for (4) Software Engineering texts), a supervised learning-based tool. SGID4SE incorporates six preprocessing steps and 10 state-of-the-art algorithms. SGID4SE employs six distinct strategies to enhance the performance of the minority class. We empirically evaluated each strategy and identified an optimum configuration for each algorithm. In our ten-fold cross-validation-based evaluations, a BERT-based model achieves the best performance with 85.9% precision, 80.0% recall, and 82.9% F1-score for the SGID class. This model achieves 95.7% accuracy and a Matthews Correlation Coefficient of 80.4%. Our dataset and tool establish a foundation for further research in this direction.

Toxicity on GitHub can severely impact Open Source Software (OSS) development communities. To mitigate such behavior, a better understanding of its nature and how various measurable characteristics of project contexts and participants are associated with its prevalence is necessary. To achieve this goal, we conducted a large-scale mixed-method empirical study of 2,828 GitHub-based OSS projects randomly selected based on a stratified sampling strategy. Using ToxiCR, an SE domain-specific toxicity detector, we automatically classified each comment as toxic or non-toxic. Additionally, we manually analyzed a random sample of 600 comments to validate ToxiCR's performance and gain insights into the nature of toxicity within our dataset. The results of our study suggest that profanity is the most frequent toxicity on GitHub, followed by trolling and insults. While a project's popularity is positively associated with the prevalence of toxicity, its issue resolution rate has the opposite association. Corporate-sponsored projects are less toxic, but gaming projects are seven times more toxic than non-gaming ones. OSS contributors who have authored toxic comments in the past are significantly more likely to repeat such behavior. Moreover, such individuals are more likely to become targets of toxic texts.

Toxic conversations during software development interactions may have serious repercussions on a Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) development project. For example, victims of toxic conversations may become afraid to express themselves, therefore get demotivated, and may eventually leave the project. Automated filtering of toxic conversations may help a FOSS community maintain healthy interactions among its members. However, off-the-shelf toxicity detectors perform poorly on a software engineering dataset, such as one curated from code review comments. To counter this challenge, we presentToxiCR, a supervised learning based toxicity identification tool for code review interactions. ToxiCR includes a choice to select one of the 10 supervised learning algorithms, an option to select text vectorization techniques, eight preprocessing steps, and a large-scale labeled dataset of 19,651 code review comments. Two out of those eight preprocessing steps are software engineering domain specific. With our rigorous evaluation of the models with various combinations of preprocessing steps and vectorization techniques, we have identified the best combination for our dataset that boosts 95.8% accuracy and an 88.9% F1-score in identifying toxic texts. ToxiCR significantly outperforms existing toxicity detectors on our dataset. We have released our dataset, pre-trained models, evaluation results, and source code publicly, which is available athttps://github.com/WSU-SEAL/ToxiCR.

The conference offers a note of thanks and lists its reviewers.