dorsal/arxiv
View SchemaSelf-Admitted Technical Debt in LLM Software: An Empirical Comparison with ML and Non-ML Software
| Authors | Niruthiha Selvanayagam, Taher A. Ghaleb, Manel Abdellatif |
|---|---|
| Categories | |
| ArXiv ID | 2601.06266vv3 |
| URL | https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.06266 |
| License | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
Abstract
Self-admitted technical debt (SATD), referring to comments flagged by developers that explicitly acknowledge suboptimal code or incomplete functionality, has received extensive attention in machine learning (ML) and traditional (Non-ML) software. However, little is known about how SATD manifests and evolves in contemporary Large Language Model (LLM)-based systems, whose architectures, workflows, and dependencies differ fundamentally from both traditional and pre-LLM ML software. In this paper, we conduct the first empirical study of SATD in the LLM era, replicating and extending prior work on ML technical debt to modern LLM-based systems. We compare SATD prevalence across LLM, ML, and non-ML repositories across a total of 477 repositories (159 per category). We perform survival analysis of SATD introduction and removal to understand the dynamics of technical debt across different development paradigms. Surprisingly, despite their architectural complexity, our results reveal that LLM repositories accumulate SATD at similar rates to ML systems (3.95% vs. 4.10%). However, we observe that LLM repositories remain debt-free 2.4x longer than ML repositories (a median of 492 days vs. 204 days), and then start to accumulate technical debt rapidly. Moreover, our qualitative analysis of 377 SATD instances reveals three new forms of technical debt unique to LLM-based development that have not been reported in prior research: Model-Stack Workaround Debt, Model Dependency Debt, and Performance Optimization Debt. Finally, by mapping SATD to stages of the LLM development pipeline, we observe that debt concentrates
{
"annotation_id": "5fea8c57-43d7-483d-8f5b-3e01a1845a12",
"date_created": "2026-02-17T05:53:07.956000Z",
"date_modified": "2026-02-17T05:53:07.956000Z",
"file_hash": "1b2c321aa1091c6bc3ae599a4e5245dabc2df206a90bb4a7cdf3df085f82ee4e",
"private": false,
"record": {
"abstract": "Self-admitted technical debt (SATD), referring to comments flagged by developers that explicitly acknowledge suboptimal code or incomplete functionality, has received extensive attention in machine learning (ML) and traditional (Non-ML) software. However, little is known about how SATD manifests and evolves in contemporary Large Language Model (LLM)-based systems, whose architectures, workflows, and dependencies differ fundamentally from both traditional and pre-LLM ML software. In this paper, we conduct the first empirical study of SATD in the LLM era, replicating and extending prior work on ML technical debt to modern LLM-based systems. We compare SATD prevalence across LLM, ML, and non-ML repositories across a total of 477 repositories (159 per category). We perform survival analysis of SATD introduction and removal to understand the dynamics of technical debt across different development paradigms. Surprisingly, despite their architectural complexity, our results reveal that LLM repositories accumulate SATD at similar rates to ML systems (3.95% vs. 4.10%). However, we observe that LLM repositories remain debt-free 2.4x longer than ML repositories (a median of 492 days vs. 204 days), and then start to accumulate technical debt rapidly. Moreover, our qualitative analysis of 377 SATD instances reveals three new forms of technical debt unique to LLM-based development that have not been reported in prior research: Model-Stack Workaround Debt, Model Dependency Debt, and Performance Optimization Debt. Finally, by mapping SATD to stages of the LLM development pipeline, we observe that debt concentrates",
"arxiv_id": "2601.06266",
"authors": [
"Niruthiha Selvanayagam",
"Taher A. Ghaleb",
"Manel Abdellatif"
],
"categories": [
"cs.SE"
],
"license": "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
"title": "Self-Admitted Technical Debt in LLM Software: An Empirical Comparison with ML and Non-ML Software",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.06266",
"version": "v3"
},
"schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
"source": {
"execution_id": "d6345d50-0254-4cbd-ab84-a2a6de14e7c1",
"id": "arXiv Dataset",
"type": "Model",
"variant": "snapshot-2026-01-17",
"version": "0.1.0"
},
"user_id": 1000002
}