Issue Link Label Recovery and Prediction for Open Source Software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern open source software development heavily relies on the issue tracking systems to manage their feature requests, bug reports, tasks, and other similar artifacts. Together, those “issues” form a complex network with links to each other. The heterogeneous character of issues inherently results in varied link types and therefore poses a great challenge for users to create and maintain the label of the link manually. The goal of most existing automated issue link construction techniques ceases with only examining the existence of links between issues. In this work, we focus on the next important question of whether we can assess the type of issue link automatically through a data-driven method. We analyze the links between issues and their labels used the issue tracking system for 66 open source projects. Using three projects, we demonstrate promising results when using supervised machine learning classification for the task of link label recovery with careful model selection and tuning, achieving F1 scores of between 0.56-0.70 for the three studied projects. Further, the performance of our method for future link label prediction is convincing when there is sufficient historical data. Our work signifies the first step in systematically manage and maintain issue links faced in practice.
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 | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".