Stopping duplicate bug reports before they start with Continuous Querying for bug reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bug deduplication is a hot topic in software engineering information retrieval research, but it is often not deployed. Typically to de-duplicate bug reports developers rely upon the search capabilities of the bug report software they employ, such as Bugzilla, Jira, or Github Issues. These search capabilities range from simple SQL string search to IR-based word indexing methods employed by search engines. Yet too often these searches do very little to stop the creation of duplicate bug reports. Some bug trackers have more than 10\% of their bug reports marked as duplicate. Perhaps these bug tracker search engines are not enough? In this paper we propose a method of attempting to prevent duplicate bug reports before they start: continuous querying. That is as the bug reporter types in their bug report their text is used to query the bug database to find duplicate or related bug reports. This continuous querying allows the reporter to be alerted to duplicate bug reports as they report the bug, rather than formulating queries to find the duplicate bug report. Thus this work ushers in a new way of evaluating bug report deduplication techniques, as well as a new kind of bug deduplication task. We show that simple IR measures show some promise for addressing this problem but also that further research is needed to refine this novel process that is integrate-able into modern bug report systems.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".