The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Who should fix this bug?
Abstract
Open source development projects typically support an open bug repository to which both developers and users can report bugs. The reports that appear in this repository must be triaged to determine if the report is one which requires attention and if it is, which developer will be assigned the responsibility of resolving the report. Large open source developments are burdened by the rate at which new bug reports appear in the bug repository. In this paper, we present a semi-automated approach intended to ease one part of this process, the assignment of reports to a developer. Our approach applies a machine learning algorithm to the open bug repository to learn the kinds of reports each developer resolves. When a new report arrives, the classifier produced by the machine learning technique suggests a small number of developers suitable to resolve the report. With this approach, we have reached precision levels of 57% and 64% on the Eclipse and Firefox development projects respectively. We have also applied our approach to the gcc open source development with less positive results. We describe the conditions under which the approach is applicable and also report on the lessons we learned about applying machine learning to repositories used in open source development.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
GenProg: A Generic Method for Automatic Software Repair
Le Goues, C., Nguyen, T., Forrest, S., & Weimer, W. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2011.104 · Cited by 1,085
An exploratory study of the pull-based software development model
Gousios, G., Pinzger, M., & Deursen, A. V. (2014) · Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2568225.2568260 · Cited by 628
Zhou, J., Zhang, H., & Lo, D. (2012) · 2012 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse.2012.6227210 · Cited by 507
Improving bug triage with bug tossing graphs
Jeong, G., Kim, S., & Zimmermann, T. (2009) · Proceedings of the 7th joint meeting of the European software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on The foundations of software engineering · doi:10.1145/1595696.1595715 · Cited by 455
The ManyBugs and IntroClass benchmarks for automated repair of C programs
Le Goues, C., Holtschulte, N., Smith, E. K., Brun, Y., Devanbu, P., Forrest, S., & Weimer, W. (2015) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2015.2454513 · Cited by 326
Metadata
- Authors
- Anvik, J., Hiew, L., & Murphy, G. C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2006-05-28
- Pages
- 361-370
- ISSN
- 0270-5257 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2079317829
- Cited by
- 924
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.77
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Who should fix this bug? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1134285.1134336
- The paper
- Anvik, J., Hiew, L., & Murphy, G. C. (2006). Who should fix this bug? Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering. https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134336
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
