Improved IR-Based Bug Localization with Intelligent Relevance Feedback
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software bugs pose a significant challenge during development and maintenance, and practitioners spend nearly 50% of their time dealing with bugs. Many existing techniques adopt Information Retrieval (IR) to localize a reported bug using textual and semantic relevance between bug reports and source code. However, they often struggle to bridge a critical gap between bug reports and code that requires in-depth contextual understanding, which goes beyond textual or semantic relevance. In this paper, we present a novel technique for bug localization –BRaIn– that addresses the contextual gaps by assessing the relevance between bug reports and code with Large Language Models (LLM). It then leverages the LLM's feedback (a.k.a., Intelligent Relevance Feedback) to reformulate queries and rerank source documents, improving bug localization. We evaluate BRaIn using a benchmark dataset –Bench4BL– and three performance metrics and compare it against six baseline techniques from the literature. Our experimental results show that BRaIn outperforms baselines by 87.6 %, 89.5 %, and 48.8 % margins in MAP, MRR, and HIT@K, respectively. Additionally, it can localize <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$\approx 52 \%$</tex> of bugs that cannot be localized by the baseline techniques due to the poor quality of corresponding bug reports. By addressing the contextual gaps and introducing Intelligent Relevance Feedback, BRaIn advances not only theory but also improves the IR-based bug localization.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it