← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.02721 · v1
IssueLighter: An Issue Type-Aware LLM Agent for Issue Report Validity Assessment
首次提交 2026-11-02 16:13
版本更新 2026-11-02 16:13
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:42
摘要
Invalid issue reports are prevalent in open source software (OSS) projects, imposing substantial burdens on maintainers who already face a high risk of burnout. Prior research has primarily focused on identifying invalid reports for specific issue categories (e.g., bug and wontfix), leaving the broader landscape of OSS issue types largely unexplored and limiting the generalizability of existing approaches. Moreover, existing methods provide little support for explaining or validating their predictions, reducing their practical usefulness for maintainers. With the rise of LLM-based agents, it remains unclear whether a comprehensive understanding of the causes of invalidity across all issue types can improve validity assessment performance while producing well-grounded rationales. To this end, we first manually annotated the validity status of 520 issue reports from three OSS projects, i.e., pandas, scikit-learn, and mypy, resulting in 257 invalid reports and 263 valid ones. Then, we conducted a thematic analysis on these invalid reports and identified 13 causes of invalidity that are closely specific to issue types. Based on these insights, we propose IssueLighter, an agent-based framework with a type-aware validity assessment strategy that dynamically executes commands. Experimental results show that IssueLighter consistently and substantially outperforms all baseline methods, with an average F1 improvement of over 20 percentage points. Ablation studies confirm that both the type-aware strategy and the taxonomy of causes of invalidity contribute to the performance gains. Qualitative analysis further demonstrates that IssueLighter generates rationales grounded in accurately identified causes of invalidity and supported by evidence. Moreover, leveraging these rationales, we challenged maintainers' original decisions in four disputed cases, and all received approval.
作者备注：Accepted to ICSE 2027. 12 pages, 2 figures
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-02 16:13 · 最新观测版本
IssueLighter: An Issue Type-Aware LLM Agent for Issue Report Validity Assessment
Invalid issue reports are prevalent in open source software (OSS) projects, imposing substantial burdens on maintainers who already face a high risk of burnout. Prior research has primarily focused on identifying invalid reports for specific issue categories (e.g., bug and wontfix), leaving the broader landscape of OSS issue types largely unexplored and limiting the generalizability of existing approaches. Moreover, existing methods provide little support for explaining or validating their predictions, reducing their practical usefulness for maintainers. With the rise of LLM-based agents, it remains unclear whether a comprehensive understanding of the causes of invalidity across all issue types can improve validity assessment performance while producing well-grounded rationales. To this end, we first manually annotated the validity status of 520 issue reports from three OSS projects, i.e., pandas, scikit-learn, and mypy, resulting in 257 invalid reports and 263 valid ones. Then, we conducted a thematic analysis on these invalid reports and identified 13 causes of invalidity that are closely specific to issue types. Based on these insights, we propose IssueLighter, an agent-based framework with a type-aware validity assessment strategy that dynamically executes commands. Experimental results show that IssueLighter consistently and substantially outperforms all baseline methods, with an average F1 improvement of over 20 percentage points. Ablation studies confirm that both the type-aware strategy and the taxonomy of causes of invalidity contribute to the performance gains. Qualitative analysis further demonstrates that IssueLighter generates rationales grounded in accurately identified causes of invalidity and supported by evidence. Moreover, leveraging these rationales, we challenged maintainers' original decisions in four disputed cases, and all received approval.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗