Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1704.04761

Towards Effective Bug Triage with Towards Effective Bug Triage with Software Data Reduction Techniques

Jifeng Xuan·He Jiang·Yan Hu·Zhilei Ren·Weiqin Zou·Zhongxuan Luo·Xindong Wu
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Software companies spend over 45 percent of cost in dealing with software bugs. An inevitable step of fixing bugs is bug triage, which aims to correctly assign a developer to a new bug. To decrease the time cost in manual work, text classification techniques are applied to conduct automatic bug triage. In this paper, we address the problem of data reduction for bug triage, i.e., how to reduce the scale and improve the quality of bug data. We combine instance selection with feature selection to simultaneously reduce data scale on the bug dimension and the word dimension. To determine the order of applying instance selection and feature selection, we extract attributes from historical bug data sets and build a predictive model for a new bug data set. We empirically investigate the performance of data reduction on totally 600,000 bug reports of two large open source projects, namely Eclipse and Mozilla. The results show that our data reduction can effectively reduce the data scale and improve the accuracy of bug triage. Our work provides an approach to leveraging techniques on data processing to form reduced and high-quality bug data in software development and maintenance.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jifeng Xuan, He Jiang, Yan Hu, Zhilei Ren, Weiqin Zou, Zhongxuan Luo, Xindong Wu. 2017-04-16. Towards Effective Bug Triage with Towards Effective Bug Triage with Software Data Reduction Techniques. https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.04761

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗