research-article

Reducing the effort of bug report triage: Recommenders for development-oriented decisions

Authors:

Gail C. MurphyAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), Volume 20, Issue 3

Article No.: 10, Pages 1 - 35

https://doi.org/10.1145/2000791.2000794

Published: 26 August 2011 Publication History

Abstract

A key collaborative hub for many software development projects is the bug report repository. Although its use can improve the software development process in a number of ways, reports added to the repository need to be triaged. A triager determines if a report is meaningful. Meaningful reports are then organized for integration into the project's development process.

To assist triagers with their work, this article presents a machine learning approach to create recommenders that assist with a variety of decisions aimed at streamlining the development process. The recommenders created with this approach are accurate; for instance, recommenders for which developer to assign a report that we have created using this approach have a precision between 70% and 98% over five open source projects. As the configuration of a recommender for a particular project can require substantial effort and be time consuming, we also present an approach to assist the configuration of such recommenders that significantly lowers the cost of putting a recommender in place for a project. We show that recommenders for which developer should fix a bug can be quickly configured with this approach and that the configured recommenders are within 15% precision of hand-tuned developer recommenders.

Supplementary Material

Anvik (anvik.zip)

Supplemental movie, image and appendix files for Reducing the effort of bug report triage: Recommenders for development-oriented decisions

Download
140.64 KB

References

[1]

Aha, D. W., Kibler, D., and Albert, M. K. 1991. Instance-based learning algorithms. Mach. Learn. 6, 1, 37--66.

Digital Library

[2]

Anvik, J., Hiew, L., and Murphy, G. C. 2006. Who should fix this bug&quest; In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'06). ACM, 361--370.

Digital Library

[3]

Anvik, J. and Murphy, G. C. 2007. Determining implementation expertise from bug reports. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE Computer Society, 9--16.

Digital Library

[4]

Anvik, J. K. 2007. Assisting bug report triage through recommendation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia.

[5]

Baeza-Yates, R. A. and Ribeiro-Neto, B. A. 1999. Modern Information Retrieval. ACM.

Digital Library

[6]

Canfora, G. and Cerulo, L. 2006. Supporting change request assignment in open source development. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM, 1767--1772.

Digital Library

[7]

Carstensen, P. H. and Sorensen, C. 1995. Let's talk about bugs&excl; Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 7, 1, 33--54.

Digital Library

[8]

Crowston, K., Howison, J., and Annabi, H. 2006. Information systems success in free and open source software development: theory and measures. Softw. Proc. Improve. Pract. 11, 2, 123--148.

[9]

Čubranić, D. and Murphy, G. C. 2004. Automatic bug triage using text classification. In Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. 92--97.

[10]

de Souza, C. R. B., Redmiles, D., Mark, G., Penix, J., and Sierhuis, M. 2003. Management of interdependencies in collaborative software development. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE'03). IEEE Computer Society Press, 294--303.

Digital Library

[11]

Dempster, A., Laird, N., and Rubin, D. 1977. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. 39, 1, 1--38.

[12]

Di Lucca, G. A., Penta, M. D., and Gradara, S. 2002. An approach to classify software maintenance requests. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM'02). IEEE Computer Society Press, 93--102.

Digital Library

[13]

Gunn, S. R. 1998. Support Vector Machines for classification and regression. Tech. rep., Faculty of Engineering, Science and Mathematics; School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton.

[14]

Hiew, L. 2006. Assisted detection of duplicate bug reports. M.S. dissertation, University of British Columbia.

[15]

Hooimeijer, P. and Weimer, W. 2007. Modeling bug report quality. In Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE'07). 34--43.

Digital Library

[16]

John, G. H. and Langley, P. 1995. Estimating continous distributions in Bayesian classifiers. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Morgan-Kaufmann, 338--345.

Digital Library

[17]

McDonald, D. W. 2001. Evaluating expertise recommendations. In Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work. ACM, 214--223.

Digital Library

[18]

Minto, S. and Murphy, G. C. 2007. Recommending emergent teams. In Proceedings of 4th International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE Computer Society Press, 33--40.

Digital Library

[19]

Mitchell, T. M. 1997. Machine Learning. WCB/McGraw-Hill.

Digital Library

[20]

Mockus, A., Fielding, R. T., and Herbsleb, J. D. 2002. Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Meth. 11, 3, 309--346.

Digital Library

[21]

Mockus, A. and Herbsleb, J. D. 2002. Expertise browser: A quantitative approach to identifying expertise. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, 503--512.

Digital Library

[22]

Mockus, A. and Votta, L. G. 2000. Identifying reasons for software changes using historic databases. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM'00). IEEE Computer Society Press, 120.

Digital Library

[23]

Quinlan, R. 1993. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan-Kaufmann.

Digital Library

[24]

Raymond, E. S. 1999. The cathedral and the bazaar. Knowl. Tech. Policy 12, 3, 23--49.

[25]

Reis, C. R. and de Mattos Fortes, R. P. 2002. An overview of the software engineering process and tools in the Mozilla project. In Proceedings of the Open Source Software Development Workshop. 155--175.

[26]

Rennie, J. D. M., Shih, L., Teevan, J., and Karger, D. R. 2003. Tackling the poor assumptions of Naïve Bayes classifiers. In Proceedings of 20th International Conference on Machine Learning. AAAI Press, 616--623.

[27]

Runeson, P., Alexandersson, M., and Nyholm, O. 2007. Detection of duplicate defect reports using natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'07). IEEE Computer Society Press, 499--510.

Digital Library

[28]

Sakakibara, Y. 1997. Recent advances of grammatical inference. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 185, 1, 15--45.

Digital Library

[29]

Sandusky, R. J. and Gasser, L. 2005. Negotiation and the coordination of information and activity in distributed software problem management. In Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP'05). ACM, 187--196.

Digital Library

[30]

Sandusky, R. J., Gasser, L., and Ripoche, G. 2004. Bug report networks: Varieties, strategies, and impacts in a F/OSS development community. In Proceedings of ICSE Workshop on Mining Software Repositories. 80--84.

[31]

Sebastiani, F. 2002. Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM Comput. Surv. 34, 1, 1--47.

Digital Library

[32]

Wang, X., Zhang, L., Xie, T., Anvik, J., and Sun, J. 2008. An approach to detecting duplicate bug reports using natural language and execution information. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'08). ACM, 461--470.

Digital Library

[33]

Weiss, C., Premraj, R., Zimmermann, T., and Zeller, A. 2007. How long will it take to fix this bug&quest; In Proceedings of 4th International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR'07). IEEE Computer Society Press, 1--8.

Digital Library

[34]

Witten, I. H. and Frank, E. 2000. Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools with Java Implementations. Morgan-Kaufmann.

Digital Library

Cited By

Wei WLi HRen XJiang FYu XGao XDu J(2025)Improving bug triage with the bug personalized tossing relationshipInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107642179(107642)Online publication date: Mar-2025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107642
Wang ZLi JMa MLi ZKang YZhang CBansal CChintalapati MRajmohan SLin QZhang DPei CXie G(2024)Large Language Models Can Provide Accurate and Interpretable Incident Triage2024 IEEE 35th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE)10.1109/ISSRE62328.2024.00056(523-534)Online publication date: 28-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSRE62328.2024.00056
Hong HWang DKim SSung HPark CPark HLee C(2024)Implementing and Evaluating Automated Bug Triage in Industrial ProjectsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2024.351941812(193717-193730)Online publication date: 2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3519418
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Reducing the effort of bug report triage: Recommenders for development-oriented decisions

Recommendations

Improving bug triage with bug tossing graphs
ESEC/FSE '09: Proceedings of the 7th joint meeting of the European software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on The foundations of software engineering

bug report is typically assigned to a single developer who is then responsible for fixing the bug. In Mozilla and Eclipse, between 37%-44% of bug reports are "tossed" (reassigned) to other developers, for example because the bug has been assigned by ...
Cost-aware triage ranking algorithms for bug reporting systems

Bug triaging of deciding whom to fix the bug has been studied actively. However, existing work does not consider varying cost of the same bug over developers with diverse backgrounds and experiences. In clear contrast, we argue the "cost" of one bug can ...
Software Developer Recommendation in Terms of Reducing Bug Tossing Length
Security, Privacy, and Anonymity in Computation, Communication, and Storage
Abstract
In close software development, it is easy for the project manager to recommend the right developer to resolve a bug that is reported by an end-user. However, in the case of open-source software developments, where most developers are engaged on ...

Reviews

Reviewer: Gerald D Everett

Anvik and Murphy focus on bug reports, which are traditionally underutilized by developers, as a tool to increase quality and decrease risks in software development. The authors' bug report analysis tool"?a recommender"?shows definite promise in reducing bug report categorization and pre-grouping costs while achieving predictive results. However, additional work is needed to make the three presented recommenders valuable enough for practical use. It is an international testing best practice to analyze bug reports for corrective development action. The authors demonstrate their recommender tool to be a more cost-effective bug report analysis approach than manual review. In order to establish credibility for the paper's recommender value premise and proof of cost reduction for a nontester professional audience, the authors must provide additional information. The paper's value premise about cost reduction is stated numerous times; however, no benefits are presented to offset the recommender costs"?the real value for practical use. In addition, I could not find a list of the Bugzilla bug report fields on which the authors based their recommender case study analysis. Online Computing Reviews Service

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology Volume 20, Issue 3

August 2011

176 pages

ISSN:1049-331X

EISSN:1557-7392

DOI:10.1145/2000791

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2011 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 26 August 2011

Accepted: 01 June 2009

Revised: 01 March 2009

Received: 01 May 2008

Published in TOSEM Volume 20, Issue 3

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

236
Total Citations
View Citations
2,164
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)39
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 31 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Wei WLi HRen XJiang FYu XGao XDu J(2025)Improving bug triage with the bug personalized tossing relationshipInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107642179(107642)Online publication date: Mar-2025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107642
Wang ZLi JMa MLi ZKang YZhang CBansal CChintalapati MRajmohan SLin QZhang DPei CXie G(2024)Large Language Models Can Provide Accurate and Interpretable Incident Triage2024 IEEE 35th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE)10.1109/ISSRE62328.2024.00056(523-534)Online publication date: 28-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSRE62328.2024.00056
Hong HWang DKim SSung HPark CPark HLee C(2024)Implementing and Evaluating Automated Bug Triage in Industrial ProjectsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2024.351941812(193717-193730)Online publication date: 2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3519418
Al-Fraihat DSharrab YAl-Ghuwairi AAlzabut HBeshara MAlgarni A(2024)Utilizing machine learning algorithms for task allocation in distributed agile software developmentHeliyon10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e3992610:21(e39926)Online publication date: Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39926
Alraddadi RAlshayeb M(2024)An empirical evaluation of stacked generalization models for binary bug report classificationInnovations in Systems and Software Engineering10.1007/s11334-024-00584-zOnline publication date: 29-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-024-00584-z
Koana ULe QRahman SCarlson CChew FNayebi M(2024)Examining ownership models in software teamsEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-024-10538-529:6Online publication date: 27-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10664-024-10538-5
Borg MJonsson LEngström EBartalos BSzabó A(2024)Adopting automated bug assignment in practice — a longitudinal case study at EricssonEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-024-10507-y29:5Online publication date: 30-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10664-024-10507-y
Dai JLi QXie SLi DChu H(2024)PCGJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.267336:9Online publication date: 16-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1002/smr.2673
Yang XLiu JZhang D(2023)A Comprehensive Taxonomy for Prediction Models in Software EngineeringInformation10.3390/info1402011114:2(111)Online publication date: 10-Feb-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/info14020111
Saleem KNaseem RKhan KMuhammad SSyed IChoi J(2023)Bug Prioritization Using Average One Dependence EstimatorIntelligent Automation & Soft Computing10.32604/iasc.2023.03635636:3(3517-3533)Online publication date: 2023
https://doi.org/10.32604/iasc.2023.036356
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents