Reformulating Queries for Duplicate Bug Report Detection
Reformulating Queries for Duplicate Bug Report Detection
复制标题
DOI：
10.1109/saner.2019.8667985
复制
发表时间：
2019-02
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Oscar Chaparro;Juan Manuel Florez;Unnati Singh;Andrian Marcus
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Oscar Chaparro;Juan Manuel Florez;Unnati Singh;Andrian Marcus
报告错误时，一项重要的任务是检查它们是否是新的，或者是否已提出了许多方法来部分自动化的重复错误报告检测，并且其中大多数依赖于文本检索技术查询。其中一些包括其他错误信息，并使用复杂的检索或基于学习的方法。将错误的三进样品留给他们自己的设备，我们认为这些重复的错误检索应该可以交互使用，从而使用户可以重新制定查询以完善检索。简单地从“错误”报告软件观察到的行为和/或错误标题的描述，并将其结合起来以发出新的查询。使用基本的重复检索技术，在20个开源项目的Bug报告中，重复的检测器未能在5-30中取得大量的错误报告（我们对34％至50％）进行了重复查询这些错误报告的样本，并将结果与初始查询进行了比较。或者，只有观察到的改革行为也比最初的查询要好于检索。
When bugs are reported, one important task is to check if they are new or if they were reported before. Many approaches have been proposed to partially automate duplicate bug report detection, and most of them rely on text retrieval techniques, using the bug reports as queries. Some of them include additional bug information and use complex retrieval- or learning-based methods. In the end, even the most sophisticated approaches fail to retrieve duplicate bug reports in many cases, leaving the bug triagers to their own devices. We argue that these duplicate bug retrieval tools should be used interactively, allowing the users to reformulate the queries to refine the retrieval. With that in mind, we are proposing three query reformulation strategies that require the users to simply select from the bug report the description of the software’s observed behavior and/or the bug title, and combine them to issue a new query. The paper reports an empirical evaluation of the reformulation strategies, using a basic duplicate retrieval technique, on bug reports with duplicates from 20 open source projects. The duplicate detector failed to retrieve duplicates in top 5-30 for a significant number of the bug reports (between 34% and 50%). We reformulated the queries for a sample of these bug reports and compared the results against the initial query. We found that using the observed behavior description, together with the title, leads to the best retrieval performance. Using only the title or only the observed behavior for reformulation is also better than retrieval with the initial query. The reformulation strategies lead to 56.6%-78% average retrieval improvement, over using the initial query only.