ADPTriage: Approximate Dynamic Programming for Bug Triage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bug triaging is a critical task in any software development project. It entails triagers going over a list of open bugs, deciding whether each is required to be addressed, and, if so, which developer should fix it. However, the manual bug assignment in Issue Tracking Systems (ITS) offers only a limited solution and might easily fail when triagers are required to handle a large number of bug reports. During the automated assignment, there are multiple sources of uncertainties in the ITS, which should be addressed meticulously. In this study, we develop a Markov decision process (MDP) model for an online bug triage problem. In addition to an optimization-based myopic technique, we provide an ADP-based bug triage solution, called ADPTriage, which has the ability to reflect the downstream uncertainty in the bug arrivals and developers’ timetables. Specifically, without placing any limits on the underlying stochastic process, this technique enables real-time decision-making on bug assignments while taking into consideration developers’ expertise, bug type, and bug fixing time. Our result shows a significant improvement over the myopic approach in terms of assignment accuracy and fixing time. We also demonstrate the empirical convergence of the model and conduct sensitivity analysis with various model parameters. Accordingly, this work constitutes a significant step forward in addressing the uncertainty in bug triage.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".