Continuously Learning Bug Locations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatically locating buggy changesets associated with bug reports is crucial in the software development process. Deep Learning (DL)-based techniques show promising results by leveraging structural information from the code and learning links between changesets and bug reports. However, since source code associated with changesets evolves, the performance of such models tends to degrade over time due to concept drift. Aiming to address this challenge, in this paper, we evaluate the potential of using Continual Learning (CL) techniques in multiple sub-tasks setting for bug localization (each of which operates on either stationary or non-stationary data), comparing it against a bug localization technique that leverages the BERT model, a deep reinforcement learning-based technique that leverages the A2C algorithm, and a DL-based function-level interaction model for semantic bug localization. Additionally, we enhanced the CL techniques by using logistic regression to identify and integrate the most significant bug-inducing factors. Our empirical evaluation across seven widely used software projects shows that CL techniques perform better than DL-based techniques by up to 61% in terms of Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR), 44% in terms of Mean Average Precision (MAP), 83% in terms of top@1, 56% in terms of top@5, and 66% in terms of top@10 metrics in non-stationary setting. Further, we show that the CL techniques we studied are effective at localizing changesets relevant to a bug report while being able to mitigate catastrophic forgetting across the studied tasks and require up to 5x less computational effort during training. Our findings demonstrate the potential of adopting CL for bug localization in non-stationary settings, and we hope it helps to improve bug localization activities in Software Engineering using CL techniques.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".