Improving Bug Location Using Binary Class Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bug location assists developers in locating culprit source code that must be modified to fix a bug. Done manually, it requires intensive search activities with unpredictable costs of effort and time. Information retrieval (IR) techniques have been proven useful to speedup bug location in object-oriented programs. IR techniques compute the textual similarities between a bug report and the source code to provide a list of potential culprit classes to developers. They rank the list of classes in descending order of the likelihood of the classes to be related to the bug report. However, due to the low textual similarity between source code and bug reports, IR techniques may put a culprit class at the end of a ranked list, which forces developers to manually verify all non-culprit classes before finding the actual culprit class. Thus, even with IR techniques, developers are not saved from manual effort. In this paper, we conjecture that binary class relationships (BCRs) could improve the rankings by IR techniques of classes and, thus, help reducing developers' manual effort. We present an approach, LIBCROOS, that combines the results of any IR technique with BCRs gathered through source code analyses. We perform an empirical study on four programs -- Jabref, Lucene, muCommander, and Rhino -- to compare the accuracy, in terms of ranking, of LIBCROOS with two IR techniques: latent semantic indexing (LSI) and vector space model (VSM). The results of this empirical study show that LIBCROOS improves the rankings of both IR technique statistically when compared to LSI and VSM alone and, thus, may reduce the developers' effort.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".