The Forgotten Role of Search Queries in IR-based Bug Localization: An Empirical Study
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Being light-weight and cost-effective, IR-based approaches for bug localization have shown promise in finding software bugs. However, the accuracy of these approaches heavily depends on their used bug reports. A significant number of bug reports contain only plain natural language texts. According to existing studies, IR-based approaches cannot perform well when they use these bug reports as search queries. On the other hand, there is a piece of recent evidence that suggests that even these natural language-only reports contain enough good keywords that could help localize the bugs successfully. On one hand, these findings suggest that natural language-only bug reports might be a sufficient source for good query keywords. On the other hand, they cast serious doubt on the query selection practices in the IR-based bug localization. In this article, we attempted to clear the sky on this aspect by conducting an in-depth empirical study that critically examines the state-of-the-art query selection practices in IR-based bug localization. In particular, we use a dataset of 2,320 bug reports, employ ten existing approaches from the literature, exploit the Genetic Algorithm-based approach to construct optimal, near-optimal search queries from these bug reports, and then answer three research questions. We confirmed that the state-of-the-art query construction approaches are indeed not sufficient for constructing appropriate queries (for bug localization) from certain natural language-only bug reports although they contain such queries. We also demonstrate that optimal queries and non-optimal queries chosen from bug report texts are significantly different in terms of several keyword characteristics, which has led us to actionable insights. Furthermore, we demonstrate 27%--34% improvement in the performance of non-optimal queries through the application of our actionable insights to them.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 86 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Aug 2021.
Builds on
8 of 86 references.
References · 8
- 2018Predicting Usefulness of Code Review Comments using Textual Features and Developer Experiencecited by 13
- 2018RACK: Automatic API Recommendation using Crowdsourced Knowledgecited by 12
- 2018Improving IR-Based Bug Localization with Context-Aware Query Reformulationcited by 11
- 2018Improved Query Reformulation for Concept Location using CodeRank and Document Structurescited by 4
- 2018QUICKAR: Automatic Query Reformulation for Concept Location using Crowdsourced Knowledgecited by 3
- 2018An Insight into the Unresolved Questions at Stack Overflowcited by 2
- 2018STRICT: Information Retrieval Based Search Term Identification for Concept Locationcited by 2
- 2018Poster: Improving Bug Localization with Report Quality Dynamics and Query Reformulationcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 0; 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
5 papers.
- 2023RLocator: Reinforcement Learning for Bug Localizationcited by 7
- 2025Improved IR-based Bug Localization with Intelligent Relevance Feedbackcited by 5
- 2021A Systematic Review of Automated Query Reformulations in Source Code Searchcited by 2
- 2025Reformulate, Retrieve, Localize: Agents for Repository-Level Bug Localizationcited by 0
- 2026Improved Bug Localization with AI Agents Leveraging Hypothesis and Dynamic Cognitioncited by 0
- 2026Improved Bug Localization with AI Agents Leveraging Hypothesis and Dynamic Cognition18 Jan 2026
- 2025Reformulate, Retrieve, Localize: Agents for Repository-Level Bug Localization7 Dec 2025
- 2025Improved IR-based Bug Localization with Intelligent Relevance Feedback17 Jan 2025
- 2023RLocator: Reinforcement Learning for Bug Localization9 May 2023
- 2021A Systematic Review of Automated Query Reformulations in Source Code Search22 Aug 2021