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.

REFERENCES

• 1: John Anvik , Lyndon Hiew , Gail C. Murphy, Who should fix this bug?, Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering, May 20-28, 2006, Shanghai, China [doi>10.1145/1134285.1134336]
• 2: John Anvik , Lyndon Hiew , Gail C. Murphy, Coping with an open bug repository, Proceedings of the 2005 OOPSLA workshop on Eclipse technology eXchange, p.35-39, October 16-17, 2005, San Diego, California [doi>10.1145/1117696.1117704]
• 3: James Clause , Alessandro Orso, A Technique for Enabling and Supporting Debugging of Field Failures, Proceedings of the 29th international conference on Software Engineering, p.261-270, May 20-26, 2007 [doi>10.1109/ICSE.2007.10]
• 4: Cubranic, D. and Murphy, G. Automatic Bug Triage Using Text Classification. In Proc. SEKE, 2004, 92--97.
• 5: Sebastian Elbaum , Madeline Diep, Profiling Deployed Software: Assessing Strategies and Testing Opportunities, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.31 n.4, p.312-327, April 2005 [doi>10.1109/TSE.2005.50]
• 6: Patrick Francis , David Leon , Melinda Minch , Andy Podgurski, Tree-Based Methods for Classifying Software Failures, Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, p.451-462, November 02-05, 2004 [doi>10.1109/ISSRE.2004.43]
• 7: Greengrass, E. Information Retrieval: A Survey, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 2000
• 8: Hiew, L. Assisted Detection of Duplicate Bug Reports. Master's thesis, University of British Columbia, Canada, 2006.
• 9: Ralf Hildebrandt , Andreas Zeller, Simplifying failure-inducing input, Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Software testing and analysis, p.135-145, August 21-24, 2000, Portland, Oregon, United States
• 10: Andrew J. Ko , Brad A. Myers , Duen Horng Chau, A Linguistic Analysis of How People Describe Software Problems, Proceedings of the Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, p.127-134, September 04-08, 2006 [doi>10.1109/VLHCC.2006.3]
• 11: Ben Liblit , Alex Aiken , Alice X. Zheng , Michael I. Jordan, Bug isolation via remote program sampling, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2003 conference on Programming language design and implementation, June 09-11, 2003, San Diego, California, USA
• 12: G. di Lucca, An Approach to Classify Software Maintenance Requests, Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM'02), p.93, October 03-06, 2002
• 13: Christopher D. Manning , Hinrich Schütze, Foundations of statistical natural language processing, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999
• 14: Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), v.11 n.3, p.309-346, July 2002 [doi>10.1145/567793.567795]
• 15: Andy Podgurski , David Leon , Patrick Francis , Wes Masri , Melinda Minch , Jiayang Sun , Bin Wang, Automated support for classifying software failure reports, Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 03-10, 2003, Portland, Oregon
• 16: Raghavan, V., Wong, M. A critical analysis of vector space model for information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37, 5: p279--287, 1986.
• 17: Steven P. Reiss , Manos Renieris, Encoding program executions, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, p.221-230, May 12-19, 2001, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
• 18: Per Runeson , Magnus Alexandersson , Oskar Nyholm, Detection of Duplicate Defect Reports Using Natural Language Processing, Proceedings of the 29th international conference on Software Engineering, p.499-510, May 20-26, 2007 [doi>10.1109/ICSE.2007.32]
• 19: Sandusky, J., Gasser, L., and Ripoche, G. Bug Report Networks: Varieties, Strategies, and Impacts in an OSS Development Community, In Proc. MSR, 2004, 80--84.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.7 Distribution, Maintenance, and Enhancement

General Terms:
Languages, Management, Reliability

Keywords:
duplicate bug report, execution information, information retrieval