Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Software bug priority prediction technique based on intuitionistic fuzzy representation and class imbalance learning

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Knowledge and Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In modern times, the software industry is more focused on the timely release of high-quality software. Software bugs have a significant impact on software quality and reliability. To complete the bug triaging process on time, the triager has to understand each bug and assign the correct priority to it. However, the bugs are reported rapidly, with lots of uncertainty and irregularities in the bug tracking system. Furthermore, there are multiple priority labels that are semantically close to each other. As a result, the triager is confused while understanding and prioritizing the bugs. To address these problems, the research presents an intuitionistic fuzzy representation of topic features-based software bug priority prediction (IFTBPP) technique. Initially, the imbalanced priority classes of software bugs are balanced using the synthetic minority oversampling technique. Then, topic modeling is used to create topics and terms for software bugs. The intuitionistic fuzzy set is used on the topics to compute various grades of a bug belonging to multiple priority classes. Finally, the similarity of a newly reported bug is calculated using intuitionistic fuzzy similarity measures with multiple priority classes. All the experiments of IFTBPP are conducted on Eclipse, Mozilla, Apache, and NetBeans repositories and compared with other existing models. The accuracy values obtained by IFTBPP on these repositories are 92.5%, 91.9%, 89.2%, and 93.9%, whereas the corresponding F-measure values are 91.7%, 91.3%, 88.9%, and 93.1%.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Algorithm 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.bugzilla.org/.

  2. https://www.atlassian.com/software/jira/.

  3. https://www.mantisbt.org/.

  4. https://developers.google.com/issue-tracker/concepts/issues.

  5. https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/.

  6. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ipsfs/index.html.

  7. https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/.

  8. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/describecomponents.cgi.

  9. https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/describecomponents.cgi.

  10. https://netbeans.org/bugzilla/.

  11. https://www.r-project.org.

  12. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ipsfs/index.html.

References

  1. Elmishali A, Stern R, Kalech M (2018) An artificial intelligence paradigm for troubleshooting software bugs. Eng Appl Artif Intell 69:147–156

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rama Ranjan Panda and Naresh Kumar Nagwani (2022) Classification and intuitionistic fuzzy set based software bug triaging techniques. J King Saud Univ Comput Inf Sci 34(8):6303–6323

    Google Scholar 

  3. Umer Q, Liu H, Illahi I (2019) Cnn-based automatic prioritization of bug reports. IEEE Trans Reliab 69(4):1341–1354

    Google Scholar 

  4. Umer Q, Liu H, Sultan Y (2018) Emotion based automated priority prediction for bug reports. IEEE Access 6:35743–35752

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ni Z, Bo L, Li B, Chen T, Sun X, Xiaoxue W (2022) An approach of method-level bug localization. IET Softw 16(4):422–437

    Google Scholar 

  6. Shatnawi MQ, Alazzam B (2022) An assessment of eclipse bugs’ priority and severity prediction using machine learning. Int J Commun Netw Inf Secur 14(1):62–69

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dao A-H, Yang C-Z (2021) Improving priority prediction for bug reports with comment features. In: 2021 IEEE international conference on software engineering and artificial intelligence (SEAI). IEEE, pp 58–62

  8. Fang S, Tan Y, Zhang T, Zhou X, Liu H (2021) Effective prediction of bug-fixing priority via weighted graph convolutional networks. IEEE Trans Reliab 70(2):563–574

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ahmed HA, Bawany NZ, Shamsi JA (2021) Capbug—a framework for automatic bug categorization and prioritization using nlp and machine learning algorithms. IEEE Access 9:50496–50512

    Google Scholar 

  10. Huang Z, Shao Z, Fan G, Yu H, Yang Kng, Zhou Z (2022) Bug report priority prediction using developer-oriented socio-technical features. In: Proceedings of the 13th Asia-Pacific symposium on internetware, pp 202–211

  11. Malhotra R, Dabas A, Hariharasudhan AS, Pant M (2021) A study on machine learning applied to software bug priority prediction. In: 2021 11th International conference on cloud computing, data science & engineering (confluence). IEEE, pp 965–970

  12. Pan R, Bagherzadeh M, Ghaleb TA, Briand L (2022) Test case selection and prioritization using machine learning: a systematic literature review. Empir Softw Eng 27(2):1–43

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tian Y, Lo D, Sun C (2013) Drone: predicting priority of reported bugs by multi-factor analysis. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on software maintenance. IEEE, pp 200–209

  14. Bani-Salameh H, Sallam M, Al shboul B (2021) A deep-learning-based bug priority prediction using rnn-lstm neural networks. e-Inform Softw Eng J 15(1):66

  15. Li Y, Che X, Huang Y, Wang J, Wang S, Wang Y, Wang Q (2022) A tale of two tasks: automated issue priority prediction with deep multi-task learning. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM/IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement, pp 1–11

  16. Tahir H, Khan SUR, Ali SS (2021) Lcbpa: an enhanced deep neural network-oriented bug prioritization and assignment technique using content-based filtering. IEEE Access 9:92798–92814

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kumari M, Sharma M, Singh VB (2018) Severity assessment of a reported bug by considering its uncertainty and irregular state. Int J Open Source Softw Process 9(4):20–46

    Google Scholar 

  18. Panda RR, Nagwani NK (2022) Topic modeling and intuitionistic fuzzy set-based approach for efficient software bug triaging. Knowl Inf Syst 66:1–31

    Google Scholar 

  19. Panda RR, Nagwani NK (2023) An intuitionistic fuzzy representation based software bug severity prediction approach for imbalanced severity classes. Eng Appl Artif Intell 122:106110

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tian Y, Ali N, Lo D, Hassan AE (2016) On the unreliability of bug severity data. Empir Softw Eng 21:2298–2323

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rani P, Mishra AR, Ansari MD, Ali J (2021) Assessment of performance of telecom service providers using intuitionistic fuzzy grey relational analysis framework (if-gra). Soft Comput 25:1983–1993

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rashid E, Ansari MD (2020) Fixing the bugs in software projects from software repositories for improvisation of quality. Rec Adv Electr Electron Eng 13(2):184–192

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ansari MD, Mishra AR, Ansari FT (2018) New divergence and entropy measures for intuitionistic fuzzy sets on edge detection. Int J Fuzzy Syst 20:474–487

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Ansari MD, Ghrera SP (2018) Intuitionistic fuzzy local binary pattern for features extraction. Int J Inf Commun Technol 13(1):83–98

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ansari MD, Ghrera SP (2016) Feature extraction method for digital images based on intuitionistic fuzzy local binary pattern. In: 2016 International conference system modeling & advancement in research trends (SMART). IEEE, pp 345–349

  26. Ansari MD, Ghrera SP, Mishra AR (2016) Texture feature extraction using intuitionistic fuzzy local binary pattern. J Intell Syst 29(1):19–34

    Google Scholar 

  27. Uddin J, Ghazali R, Deris MM, Naseem R, Shah H (2017) A survey on bug prioritization. Artif Intell Rev 47(2):145–180

    Google Scholar 

  28. Izadi M, Akbari K, Heydarnoori A (2022) Predicting the objective and priority of issue reports in software repositories. Empir Softw Eng 27(2):1–37

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dao A-H, Yang C-Z (2023) Automated priority prediction for bug reports using comment intensiveness features and smote data balancing. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 33(03):415–433

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wang W-Y, Chen-Hao W, He J (2023) Clebpi: contrastive learning for bug priority inference. Inf Softw Technol 164:107302

    Google Scholar 

  31. Tunali V (2022) Improved prioritization of software development demands in Turkish with deep learning-based nlp. IEEE Access 10:40249–40263

    Google Scholar 

  32. Chen T-H, Thomas SW, Hassan AE (2016) A survey on the use of topic models when mining software repositories. Empir Softw Eng 21:1843–1919

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mahmoud A, Bradshaw G (2017) Semantic topic models for source code analysis. Empir Softw Eng 22:1965–2000

    Google Scholar 

  34. Alamin MAA, Uddin G, Malakar S, Afroz S, Haider T, Iqbal A (2023) Developer discussion topics on the adoption and barriers of low code software development platforms. Empir Softw Eng 28(1):1–59

    Google Scholar 

  35. Silva CC, Galster M, Gilson F (2021) Topic modeling in software engineering research. Empir Softw Eng 26(6):120

    Google Scholar 

  36. Atzberger D, Schneider J, Scheibel W, Limberger D, Trapp M, Döllner J (2022) Mining developer expertise from bug tracking systems using the author-topic model. In: ENASE, pp 107–118

  37. Corley CS, Damevski K, Kraft NA (2018) Changeset-based topic modeling of software repositories. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 46(10):1068–1080

    Google Scholar 

  38. Panda RR, Nagwani NK (2023) An improved software bug triaging approach based on topic modeling and fuzzy logic. In: Proceedings of third doctoral symposium on computational intelligence. Springer, pp 337–346

  39. Wang Y, Yao Y, Tong H, Huo X, Li M, Xu F, Lu J (2018) Bug localization via supervised topic modeling. In: 2018 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM). IEEE, pp 607–616

  40. Bibyan R, Anand S, Jaiswal A (2022) Latent dirichlet allocation (lda) based on automated bug severity prediction model. In: Proceedings of data analytics and management: ICDAM 2021, vol 1. Springer, pp 363–377

  41. Hamdy A, El-Laithy A (2020) Semantic categorization of software bug repositories for severity assignment automation. Integr Res Pract Softw Eng 66:15–30

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kim J, Yang G (2022) Bug severity prediction algorithm using topic-based feature selection and cnn-lstm algorithm. IEEE Access 10:94643–94651

    Google Scholar 

  43. Zhang T, Chen J, Yang G, Lee B, Luo X (2016) Towards more accurate severity prediction and fixer recommendation of software bugs. J Syst Softw 117:166–184

    Google Scholar 

  44. Li H, Chen T-H, Shang W, Hassan AE (2018) Studying software logging using topic models. Empir Softw Eng 23:2655–2694

    Google Scholar 

  45. Izadi M, Heydarnoori A, Gousios G (2021) Topic recommendation for software repositories using multi-label classification algorithms. Empir Softw Eng 26:1–33

    Google Scholar 

  46. Yang G, Min K, Lee J-W, Lee B (2019) Applying topic modeling and similarity for predicting bug severity in cross projects. KSII Trans Internet Inf Syst 13(3):1583–1598

    Google Scholar 

  47. Tagra A, Zhang H, Rajbahadur GK, Hassan AE (2022) Revisiting reopened bugs in open source software systems. Empir Softw Eng 27(4):1–34

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hamdy A, El-Laithy A (2019) Smote and feature selection for more effective bug severity prediction. Int JSoftw Eng Knowl Eng 29(06):897–919

    Google Scholar 

  49. He H, Garcia EA (2009) Learning from imbalanced data. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 21(9):1263–1284

    Google Scholar 

  50. Zadeh LA (1996) Fuzzy sets. In: Zadeh LA (ed) Fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic, and fuzzy systems: selected papers. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 394–432

    Google Scholar 

  51. Atanassov KT (1999) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. In: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–137

  52. Sugeno M, Terano T (1977) A model of learning based on fuzzy information. Kybernetes 6:66

    Google Scholar 

  53. Boran FE, Akay D (2014) A biparametric similarity measure on intuitionistic fuzzy sets with applications to pattern recognition. Inform Sci 255:45–57

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  54. Chen S-M (1995) Measures of similarity between vague sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 74(2):217–223

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  55. Dengfeng L, Chuntian C (2002) New similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and application to pattern recognitions. Pattern Recognit Lett 23(1–3):221–225

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  56. Garg H, Kumar K (2018) Distance measures for connection number sets based on set pair analysis and its applications to decision-making process. Appl Intell 48(10):3346–3359

    Google Scholar 

  57. Hong DH, Kim C (1999) A note on similarity measures between vague sets and between elements. Inf Sci 115(1–4):83–96

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  58. Hung W-L, Yang M-S (2008) On similarity measures between intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 23(3):364–383

    Google Scholar 

  59. Jiang Q, Jin X, Lee S-J, Yao S (2019) A new similarity/distance measure between intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on the transformed isosceles triangles and its applications to pattern recognition. Expert Syst Appl 116:439–453

    Google Scholar 

  60. Liu H-W (2005) New similarity measures between intuitionistic fuzzy sets and between elements. Math Comput Model 42(1–2):61–70

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  61. Mitchell HB (2003) On the Dengfeng–Chuntian similarity measure and its application to pattern recognition. Pattern Recognit Lett 24(16):3101–3104

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  62. Ngan RT, Cuong BC, Ali M et al (2018) H-max distance measure of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in decision making. Appl Soft Comput 69:393–425

    Google Scholar 

  63. Song Y, Wang X, Lei L, Xue A (2014) A new similarity measure between intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application to pattern recognition. In: Abstract and applied analysis, vol 2014. Hindawi

  64. Ye J (2011) Cosine similarity measures for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their applications. Math Comput Model 53(1–2):91–97

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  65. Panda RR, Nagwani NK (2022) Ipsfs: intuitionistic, pythagorean, and spherical fuzzy similarity computation package in r. Software Impacts, p 100424

  66. Friedman M (1937) The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J Am Stat Assoc 32(200):675–701

    Google Scholar 

  67. Friedman M (1940) A comparison of alternative tests of significance for the problem of m rankings. Ann Math Stat 11(1):86–92

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  68. Nemenyi PB (1963) Distribution-free multiple comparisons. Princeton University, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  69. Demšar J (2006) Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J Mach Learn Res 7:1–30

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, National Institute of Technology Raipur, Raipur, India

    Rama Ranjan Panda & Naresh Kumar Nagwani

Authors
  1. Rama Ranjan Panda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naresh Kumar Nagwani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RRP: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Writing—original draft, Investigation, Software, Validation. NKN: Supervision, Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Rama Ranjan Panda or Naresh Kumar Nagwani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Panda, R.R., Nagwani, N.K. Software bug priority prediction technique based on intuitionistic fuzzy representation and class imbalance learning. Knowl Inf Syst 66, 2135–2164 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-023-02000-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-023-02000-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation