Interactive Visualization of Bug Reports Using Topic Evolution and Extractive Summaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software bug reports are important project artifacts that evolve throughout the life of a software project. Software bugs are issues that are reported by users when these issues hinder their work. Software projects evolve over time as bugs are addressed and new features are added. Managing bugs can be a significant challenge as a project manager generally needs to be aware of all the bug reports for the current version, and this can be even more challenging when the number of bug reports becomes large. It is preferable that a developer new to a project improves her knowledge with the project along with the bug reports during working on it, which is likely to help her avoid or handle the reported issues. In this paper, we propose a prototype that assists developers review a project's bug reports by interactively visualizing insightful information regarding the bug reports using topic analysis. In addition, in order to reduce developers' time and efforts when studying a bug report, the proposed prototype also provides an extractive summary visualization of each bug report. In this research, it is shown that our proposed prototype performs better in terms of precision, recall, and F-measure than a baseline approach that uses time-sensitive keyword extraction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".