Improving Bug Triaging with High Confidence Predictions at Ericsson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correctly assigning bugs to the right developer or team, i.e. bug triaging, is a costly activity. A concerted effort at Ericsson has been done to adopt automated bug triaging to reduce development costs. In this work, we replicate the research approaches that have been widely used in the literature. We apply them on over 10k bug reports for 9 large products at Ericsson. We find that a logistic regression classifier including the simple textual and categorical attributes of the bug reports has the highest precision and recall of 78.09% and 79.00%, respectively. Ericsson's bug reports often contain logs that have crash dumps and alarms. We add this information to the bug triage models. We find that this information does not improve the precision and recall of bug triaging in Ericsson's context. Although our models perform as well as the best ones reported in the literature, a criticism of bug triaging at Ericsson is that the accuracy is not sufficient for regular use. We develop a novel approach where we only triage bugs when the model has high confidence in the triage prediction. We find that we improve the accuracy to 90%, but we can make predictions for 62% of the bug 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".