A contextual approach towards more accurate duplicate bug report detection
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
Bug-tracking and issue-tracking systems tend to be populated with bugs, issues, or tickets written by a wide variety of bug reporters, with different levels of training and knowledge about the system being discussed. Many bug reporters lack the skills, vocabulary, knowledge, or time to efficiently search the issue tracker for similar issues. As a result, issue trackers are often full of duplicate issues and bugs, and bug triaging is time consuming and error prone. Many researchers have approached the bug-deduplication problem using off-the-shelf information-retrieval tools, such as BM25F used by Sun et al. In our work, we extend the state of the art by investigating how contextual information, relying on our prior knowledge of software quality, software architecture, and system-development (LDA) topics, can be exploited to improve bug-deduplication. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our contextual bug-deduplication method on the bug repository of the Android ecosystem. Based on this experience, we conclude that researchers should not ignore the context of software engineering when using IR tools for deduplication.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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