Classifying field crash reports for fixing bugs: A case study of Mozilla Firefox
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many software systems support automatic collection of field crash-reports which record the stack traces and other runtime information when crashes occur. Analysis of field crash-reports can help developers to locate and fix bugs. However, the amount of crash-reports collected is often too large to handle. To reduce the amount of data for the analysis, the existing approaches group similar crash-reports together. A bug can trigger a crash in different usage scenarios. Therefore, the crash-reports triggered by the same bug may not be identical. Using the existing approaches, the crash-reports triggered by the same bugs can be distributed into different groups and one group may contain crash-reports triggered by different bugs. We perform an empirical study of crash-reports collected for Mozilla Firefox to analyze the impact of crash-report grouping and identify the characteristics of an efficient grouping. We observe that when a group contains crash-reports triggered by multiple bugs, it takes longer time to fix the bugs in comparison to the bugs where crash-reports triggered by each bug are grouped separately. To effectively reduce the bug fixing time, we propose a grouping approach, such that, each group contains the crash-reports triggered by only one bug. The case study shows that an effective grouping can reduce the bug fix time by more than 5%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it