BUMPER: A Tool for Coping with Natural Language Searches of Millions of Bugs and Fixes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, mining bug report (BR) repositories has perhaps been one of the most active software engineering research fields. There exist many open source bug tracking and version control systems that developers and researchers can use to examine bug reports so as to reason about software quality. The issue is that these repositories use different interfaces and ways to access and represent data, which hinders productivity and reuse. To address this, we introduce BUMPER (BUg Metarepository for dEvelopers and Researchers), a common infrastructure for developers and researchers interested in mining data from many (heterogeneous) repositories. BUMPER is an open source web-based environment that extracts information from a variety of BR repositories and version control systems. It is equipped with a powerful search engine to help users rapidly query the repositories using a single point of access. To demonstrate the effectiveness of BUMPER, we use it to build a large dataset from a variety of repositories. The dataset contains more than one million bug reports and fixes. Both BUMPER and the dataset are publicly available at https://bumper-app.com.
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.012 |
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".