Bug Report Enrichment with Application of Automated Fixer Recommendation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For large open source projects (e.g., Eclipse, Mozilla), developers usually utilize bug reports to facilitate software maintenance tasks such as fixer assignment. However, there are a large portion of short reports in bug repositories. We find that 78.1% of bug reports only include less than 100 words in Eclipse and require bug fixers to spend more time on resolving them due to limited informative contents. To address this problem, in this paper, we propose a novel approach to enrich bug reports. Concretely, we design a sentence ranking algorithm based on a new textual similarity metric to select the proper contents for bug report enrichment. For the enriched bug reports, we conduct a user study to assess whether the additional sentences can provide further help to fixer assignment. Moreover, we assess whether the enriched versions can improve the performance of automated fixer recommendation. In particular, we perform three popular automated fixer recommendation approaches on the enriched bug reports of Eclipse, Mozilla, and GNU Compiler Collection (GCC). The experimental results show that enriched bug reports improve the average F-measure scores of the automated fixer recommendation approaches by up to 10% for DREX, 13.37% for DRETOM, and 8% for DevRec when top-10 bug fixers are recommended.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".