On the use of hidden Markov model to predict the time to fix bugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant amount of time is spent by software developers in investigating bug reports. It is useful to indicate when a bug report will be closed, since it would help software teams to prioritise their work. Several studies have been conducted to address this problem in the past decade. Most of these studies have used the frequency of occurrence of certain developer activities as input attributes in building their prediction models. However, these approaches tend to ignore the temporal nature of the occurrence of these activities. In this paper, a novel approach using Hidden Markov models (HMMs) and temporal sequences of developer activities is proposed. The approach is empirically demonstrated in a case study using eight years of bug reports collected from the Firefox project. We provide additional details below. In a software bug repository, recorded developer activities occur sequentially. For example, activity C (a certain person has been copied on the bug report) is followed by activity A (bug confirmed and assigned to a named developer), which in turn is followed by activity Z (bug reached status resolved). Additional piece of information is developers' level of expertise, such as novice (N), intermediate (M), or experienced (E), at the time of report creation. We combine these data together to produce a sequence of temporal activities associated with bug reports in the Firefox bug repository.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".