The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An approach to detecting duplicate bug reports using natural language and execution information
Abstract
An open source project typically maintains an open bug repository so that bug reports from all over the world can be gathered. When a new bug report is submitted to the repository, a person, called a triager, examines whether it is a duplicate of an existing bug report. If it is, the triager marks it as DUPLICATE and the bug report is removed from consideration for further work. In the literature, there are approaches exploiting only natural language information to detect duplicate bug reports. In this paper we present a new approach that further involves execution information. In our approach, when a new bug report arrives, its natural language information and execution information are compared with those of the existing bug reports. Then, a small number of existing bug reports are suggested to the triager as the most similar bug reports to the new bug report. Finally, the triager examines the suggested bug reports to determine whether the new bug report duplicates an existing bug report. We calibrated our approach on a subset of the Eclipse bug repository and evaluated our approach on a subset of the Firefox bug repository. The experimental results show that our approach can detect 67%-93% of duplicate bug reports in the Firefox bug repository, compared to 43%-72% using natural language information alone.
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
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
Identifying linked incidents in large-scale online service systems
Chen, Y., Yang, X., Dong, H., He, X., Zhang, H., Lin, Q., Chen, J., Zhao, P., Kang, Y., Gao, F., et al. (2020) · Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3368089.3409768 · Cited by 47
Parameterizing and Assembling IR-Based Solutions for SE Tasks Using Genetic Algorithms
Panichella, A., Dit, B., Oliveto, R., Di Penta, M., Poshyvanyk, D., & De Lucia, A. (2016) · 2016 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER) · doi:10.1109/saner.2016.97 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, X., Zhang, L., Xie, T., Anvik, J., & Sun, J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Software engineering - ICSE '08
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2008
- Pages
- 461
- ISSN
- 0270-5257 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2156833313
- Cited by
- 539
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.41
- 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: An approach to detecting duplicate bug reports using natural language and execution information. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1368088.1368151
- The paper
- Wang, X., Zhang, L., Xie, T., Anvik, J., & Sun, J. (2008). An approach to detecting duplicate bug reports using natural language and execution information. Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Software engineering - ICSE '08. https://doi.org/10.1145/1368088.1368151
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.
