The Impact of Classifier Configuration and Classifier Combination on Bug Localization
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 localization is the task of determining which source code entities are relevant to a bug report. Manual bug localization is labor intensive since developers must consider thousands of source code entities. Current research builds bug localization classifiers, based on information retrieval models, to locate entities that are textually similar to the bug report. Current research, however, does not consider the effect of classifier configuration, i.e., all the parameter values that specify the behavior of a classifier. As such, the effect of each parameter or which parameter values lead to the best performance is unknown. In this paper, we empirically investigate the effectiveness of a large space of classifier configurations, 3,172 in total. Further, we introduce a framework for combining the results of multiple classifier configurations since classifier combination has shown promise in other domains. Through a detailed case study on over 8,000 bug reports from three large-scale projects, we make two main contributions. First, we show that the parameters of a classifier have a significant impact on its performance. Second, we show that combining multiple classifiers--whether those classifiers are hand-picked or randomly chosen relative to intelligently defined subspaces of classifiers--improves the performance of even the best individual classifiers.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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