Skip to content
Switch branches/tags

Latest commit



Failed to load latest commit information.
Latest commit message
Commit time

This public repository hosts the data for the REPLICA study (paper, tool), a user study of Coq proof engineers.


The raw data is in the raw directory.

Processed data for Q2 is in the diffs-annotated-fixed-2 directory. You can use the Git history to look back at the sessions referenced within the paper.


Before running our scripts, be sure to unzip the raw data:

  1. cd raw
  2. tar xzf logs.tar.gz

Please contact us if you have any issues running our scripts.


To reproduce the numbers reported for Q1:

  1. cd raw
  2. python3 ../scripts/q1/ (You'll need to wait a while after this command, while the raw logs are split into sessions.)
  3. Read the output for information about raw cancellation
  4. python3 ../scripts/q1/
  5. Read the output for information about cancellations and their replacement commands
  6. In the graphs/ directory, you'll find svgs of proof flow graphs.


To reproduce the Git commits for the Q2 analysis, first create a new directory within the project, and then modify this line:


in to point to it (or commit-diffs-timestamps if you would like annotatations for timestamps). Also add subdirectories in your new directory for each user, with the names 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Then, just run (or if you would like experimental annotations for timestamps---but see the important note below about these) from within its directory. You can then look at the Git history to see the processed data.

The changes directory contains a complete list of all of the changes that we found in the manual analysis of this processed data, as well as benchmarks from the paper, with links to the relevant diffs.

Important Notes

Please do reuse our data if it helps you! But before you do, please read the paper, especially the discussion section, for information about the data before you interpret it. And please read the notes below.

Timestamps: Please do not rely on processed data for timestamps until further notice. They are correct in the raw data. We attempted to add these to our analyses in response to reviewer feedback, but did not do so perfectly the first time around. The analysis script is flawed in how it treats timestamps for now. Intermediate timestamps are in general not yet correct in the processed data you see in the linked commits. The start and end timestamps of every session in the benchmarks are taken from the raw data and are accurate. Intermediate times, when discussed in the paper and in the benchmark file, are also taken from the raw data. I will run a reanalysis at some point after the camera-ready and update the commits to point to the data with the correct intermediate timestamps. Sorry for the confusion!

Intent: While we know that each change that we found was in fact made on one of our users' computers over the course of the month, we do not have any guarantee that each user did not lend the computer to someone else, or demonstrate something to a student. We think it is likely that most changes we find come directly from the user for their own purposes, but some changes may not. It is worth considering that when you look at the data if you see anything surprising.

Failures for User 5: As we note in the paper, we could not automatically distinguish failures from user backtracking for User 5. So even though processed data is annotated with "success" and "failure," for User 5, it will always appear as "success," and you must manually inspect the data in question to determine whether this is actually a success.

Module Names: Due to a bug in CoqIDE and Proof General that we have reported and that is fixed in the latest Coq version, we could not always determine the name of the module that corresponds to a given session. For impacted users, the module will always appear as "Top." This means that manual analysis is needed in order to determine if two sessions refer to the same file.

Classification: If you are an anonymous user and see any of your data very clearly misclassified (this can happen, as I am not the author of the code and classification is hard), feel free to let me know by email, and I will add an errata and address it here.


No description, website, or topics provided.






No releases published


No packages published