Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software crashes are feared by software organisations and end users. Many software organisations have embedded automatic crash reporting tools in their software systems to help development teams track and fix crash-related bugs. Previous techniques, which focus on the triaging of crash-types and crash-related bugs, can help software practitioners increase their debugging efficiency on crashes. But, these techniques can only be applied after the crashes occurred and already affected a large population of users. To help software organisations detect and address crash-prone code early, we conduct a case study of commits that would lead to crashes, called "crash-inducing commits", in Mozilla Firefox. We found that crash-inducing commits are often submitted by developers with less experience. Developers perform more addition and deletion of lines of code in crash-inducing commits. We built predictive models to help software practitioners detect and fix crash-prone bugs early on. Our predictive models achieve a precision of 61.4% and a recall of 95.0%. Software organisations can use our proposed predictive models to track and fix crash-prone commits early on before they negatively impact users; increasing bug fixing efficiency and user-perceived quality.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".