Papers › Predicting the Number of Reported Bugs in a Software Repository
Predicting the Number of Reported Bugs in a Software Repository
Hadi Jahanshahi, Mucahit Cevik, Ayşe Başar
The bug growth pattern prediction is a complicated, unrelieved task, which needs considerable attention. Advance knowledge of the likely number of bugs discovered in the software system helps software developers in designating sufficient resources at a convenient time. The developers may also use such information to take necessary actions to increase the quality of the system and in turn customer satisfaction. In this study, we examine eight different time series forecasting models, including Long Short Term Memory Neural Networks (LSTM), auto-regressive integrated moving average (ARIMA), and Random Forest Regressor. Further, we assess the impact of exogenous variables such as software release dates by incorporating those into the prediction models. We analyze the quality of long-term prediction for each model based on different performance metrics. The assessment is conducted on Mozilla, which is a large open-source software application. The dataset is originally mined from Bugzilla and contains the number of bugs for the project between Jan 2010 and Dec 2019. Our numerical analysis provides insights on evaluating the trends in a bug repository. We observe that LSTM is effective when considering long-run predictions whereas Random Forest Regressor enriched by exogenous variables performs better for predicting the number of bugs in the short term.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections