Rediscovery Datasets: Connecting Duplicate Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The same defect can be rediscovered by multiple clients, causing unplanned outages and leading to reduced customer satisfaction. In the case of popular open source software, high volume of defects is reported on a regular basis. A large number of these reports are actually duplicates / rediscoveries of each other. Researchers have analyzed the factors related to the content of duplicate defect reports in the past. However, some of the other potentially important factors, such as the inter-relationships among duplicate defect reports, are not readily available in defect tracking systems such as Bugzilla. This information may speed up bug fixing, enable efficient triaging, improve customer profiles, etc. In this paper, we present three defect rediscovery datasets mined from Bugzilla. The datasets capture data for three groups of open source software projects: Apache, Eclipse, and KDE. The datasets contain information about approximately 914 thousands of defect reports over a period of 18 years (1999-2017) to capture the inter-relationships among duplicate defects. We believe that sharing these data with the community will help researchers and practitioners to better understand the nature of defect rediscovery and enhance the analysis of defect reports.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".