跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+586新增论文
+453其中 AI 相关
+91已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-13 11:13 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-13 11:12各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-12 12:02 — 2026-11-13 12:02(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-13 11:13最近发现新增版本:2026-11-13 11:12库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-11 22:55

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

22,261 已收录论文18,776 AI 相关6,286 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-13 11:11(北京时间)
版本更新 · v3arXiv:2605.17561

Automated Root-Cause Subclassification and No-Code Fix Generation for Invalid Bug Reports

Mahmut Furkan Gon, Emre Dinc, Tevfik Emre Sungur, Eray Tuzun

原文摘要

Issues faced when using software are reported in the form of bug reports. However, many bug reports are invalid, meaning they do not require code changes, and are resolved with a no-code fix. Manually determining the root cause of the invalid bug reports and providing actionable resolutions by the customer support causes a serious waste of resources. Our goal is to introduce a standardized taxonomy for root-cause oriented invalid bug report subclassification, and perform experiments to test the accuracy of various approaches on invalid subclassification and no-code fix generation. We study how different configurations perform on a gold-standard benchmark we have created. Using a manually curated benchmark for higher quality analysis, we experimented with vanilla LLMs, Retrieval Augmented Generation, and agentic web search to identify invalid subclasses and generate no-code fixes. We evaluated the results against manually labeled ground truth data that includes the invalid subclass and no-code fixes from the original bug reports. We measured subclass detection performance with weighted F1-Score, and assessed no-code fix suggestions using BERTScore and Judge LLM success rates. For subclassification, retrieval augmented generation achieves the highest overall performance with 0.66 weighted F1, slightly outperforming vanilla LLMs at 0.65 and agentic web search at 0.64. At the subclass level, performance peaks at 0.85 F1 for Non-reproducibility and 0.79 for Feature Request and Question, while Wrong Version remains the most challenging with scores between 0.00 and 0.29. For no-code fix generation, agentic web search achieves the highest overall Judge LLM success rate at 68.9%, compared to 64.4% for RAG applications and 64.9% for vanilla LLMs, with subclass-level peaks of 87.4% for Working as Designed and 72.2% for Question.

cs.SE · cs.AI · cs.MA