Mining duplicate questions in stack overflow
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
Stack Overflow is a popular question answering site that is focused on programming problems. Despite efforts to prevent asking questions that have already been answered, the site contains duplicate questions. This may cause developers to unnecessarily wait for a question to be answered when it has already been asked and answered. The site currently depends on its moderators and users with high reputation to manually mark those questions as duplicates, which not only results in delayed responses but also requires additional efforts. In this paper, we first perform a manual investigation to understand why users submit duplicate questions in Stack Overflow. Based on our manual investigation we propose a classification technique that uses a number of carefully chosen features to identify duplicate questions. Evaluation using a large number of questions shows that our technique can detect duplicate questions with reasonable accuracy. We also compare our technique with DupPredictor, a state-of-the-art technique for detecting duplicate questions, and we found that our proposed technique has a better recall-rate than that technique.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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