The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Characterizing and predicting which bugs get fixed: an empirical study of Microsoft Windows
Abstract
We performed an empirical study to characterize factors that affect which bugs get fixed in Windows Vista and Windows 7, focusing on factors related to bug report edits and relationships between people involved in handling the bug. We found that bugs reported by people with better reputations were more likely to get fixed, as were bugs handled by people on the same team and working in geographical proximity. We reinforce these quantitative results with survey feedback from 358 Microsoft employees who were involved in Windows bugs. Survey respondents also mentioned additional qualitative influences on bug fixing, such as the importance of seniority and interpersonal skills of the bug reporter.
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
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000) · doi:10.1002/0471722146 · Cited by 20,302
Cited by
An empirical analysis of flaky tests
Luo, Q., Hariri, F., Eloussi, L., & Marinov, D. (2014) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2635868.2635920 · Cited by 450
Work Practices and Challenges in Pull-Based Development: The Integrator's Perspective
Gousios, G., Zaidman, A., Storey, M.-A., & Deursen, A. V. (2015) · 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/icse.2015.55 · Cited by 312
It's not a bug, it's a feature: How misclassification impacts bug prediction
Herzig, K., Just, S., & Zeller, A. (2013) · 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse.2013.6606585 · Cited by 294
Can GPT-4 Replicate Empirical Software Engineering Research?
Liang, J. T., Badea, C., Bird, C., DeLine, R., Ford, D., Forsgren, N., & Zimmermann, T. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3660767 · Cited by 19
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Guo, P. J., Zimmermann, T., Nagappan, N., & Murphy, B.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 1
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2010-05
- Pages
- 495-504
- OpenAlex
- W2110229593
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.94
- 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: Characterizing and predicting which bugs get fixed: an empirical study of Microsoft Windows. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1806799.1806871
- The paper
- Guo, P. J., Zimmermann, T., Nagappan, N., & Murphy, B. (2010). Characterizing and predicting which bugs get fixed: an empirical study of Microsoft Windows. Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/1806799.1806871
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.
