mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Human-Machine Co-Boosted Bug Report Identification with Mutualistic Neural Active Learning

arXiv 2604.18862 ↗First posted 20 Apr 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Bug reports, encompassing a wide range of bug types, are crucial for maintaining software quality. However, the increasing complexity and volume of bug reports pose a significant challenge in sole manual identification and assignment to the appropriate teams for resolution, as dealing with all the reports is time-consuming and resource-intensive. In this paper, we introduce a cross-project framework, dubbed Mutualistic Neural Active Learning (MNAL), designed for automated and more effective identification of bug reports from GitHub repositories boosted by human-machine collaboration. MNAL utilizes a neural language model that learns and generalizes reports across different projects, coupled with active learning to form neural active learning. A distinctive feature of MNAL is the purposely crafted mutualistic relation between the machine learners (neural language model) and human labelers (developers) when enriching the knowledge learned. That is, the most informative human-labeled reports and their corresponding pseudo-labeled ones are used to update the model while those reports that need to be labeled by developers are more readable and identifiable, thereby enhancing the human-machine teaming therein. We evaluate MNAL using a large scale dataset against the SOTA approaches, baselines, and different variants. The results indicate that MNAL achieves up to 95.8% and 196.0% effort reduction in terms of readability and identifiability during human labeling, respectively, while resulting in a better performance in bug report identification. Additionally, our MNAL is model-agnostic since it is capable of improving the model performance with various underlying neural language models. To further verify the efficacy of our approach, we conducted a qualitative case study involving 10 human participants, who rate MNAL as being more effective while saving more time and monetary resources.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Apr 2026.

Builds on

12 of 33 references.

References · 12

  1. 2020A Survey of Deep Active Learningcited by 547
  2. 2021Multi-Objectivizing Software Configuration Tuning (for a single performance concern)cited by 27
  3. 2023Do Performance Aspirations Matter for Guiding Software Configuration Tuning?cited by 21
  4. 2022The Weights can be Harmful: Pareto Search versus Weighted Search in Multi-Objective Search-Based Software Engineeringcited by 17
  5. 2024Predicting Configuration Performance in Multiple Environments with Sequential Meta-learningcited by 17
  6. 2023Predicting Software Performance with Divide-and-Learncited by 16
  7. 2024Learning in the Wild: Towards Leveraging Unlabeled Data for Effectively Tuning Pre-trained Code Modelscited by 9
  8. 2022On Reporting Performance and Accuracy Bugs for Deep Learning Frameworks: An Exploratory Study from GitHubcited by 6
  9. 2022BugListener: Identifying and Synthesizing Bug Reports from Collaborative Live Chatscited by 4
  10. 2026Revealing Domain-Spatiality Patterns for Configuration Tuning: Domain Knowledge Meets Fitness Landscapescited by 4
  11. 2025Learning Software Bug Reports: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 3
  12. 2025Causally Perturbed Fairness Testingcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.