The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A discriminative model approach for accurate duplicate bug report retrieval
Open accessAbstract
Bug repositories are usually maintained in software projects. Testers or users submit bug reports to identify various issues with systems. Sometimes two or more bug reports corre-spond to the same defect. To address the problem with du-plicate bug reports, a person called a triager needs to man-ually label these bug reports as duplicates, and link them to their ”master ” reports for subsequent maintenance work. However, in practice there are considerable duplicate bug re-ports sent daily; requesting triagers to manually label these bugs could be highly time consuming. To address this issue, recently, several techniques have be proposed using various similarity based metrics to detect candidate duplicate bug reports for manual verification. Au-tomating triaging has been proved challenging as two reports of the same bug could be written in various ways. There is still much room for improvement in terms of accuracy of du-plicate detection process. In this paper, we leverage recent advances on using discriminative models for information re-trieval to detect duplicate bug reports more accurately. We have validated our approach on three large software bug repositories from Firefox, Eclipse, and OpenOffice. We show that our technique could result in 17–31%, 22–26%, and 35– 43 % relative improvement over state-of-the-art techniques in OpenOffice, Firefox, and Eclipse datasets respectively using commonly available natural language information only.
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
Cites
LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines
Chang, C.-C., & Lin, C.-J. (2011) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/1961189.1961199 · Cited by 40,918
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
Self-citationIdentifying 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
Inference of development activities from interaction with uninstrumented applications
Bao, L., Xing, Z., Xia, X., Lo, D., & Hassan, A. E. (2018) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-017-9547-8 · Cited by 25
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Sun, C., Lo, D., Wang, X., Jiang, J., & Khoo, S.-C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 1
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2010-05
- Pages
- 45-54
- OpenAlex
- W2139270835
- Cited by
- 336
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.72
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: A discriminative model approach for accurate duplicate bug report retrieval. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1806799.1806811
- The paper
- Sun, C., Lo, D., Wang, X., Jiang, J., & Khoo, S.-C. (2010). A discriminative model approach for accurate duplicate bug report retrieval. Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/1806799.1806811
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.
