arXiv preprint ·
BRQGen: Towards Adaptive Completeness Assessment and Follow-Up Question Generation for Bug Reports
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Many bug reports lack the necessary information required to reproduce issues. In early studies, large language models have been employed to generate follow-up questions to enhance incomplete reports. However, they ask a fixed number of questions regardless of whether the report is incomplete. We propose BRQGen, an iterative framework that identifies missing or ambiguous information in bug reports and generates targeted follow-up questions, only if necessary. Reports with no identified gaps are classified as sufficient. When the author responds, BRQGen evaluates whether the answers provide the requested information and generates further questions for any exposed gaps. We curated a novel dataset of 429 incomplete bug reports from Home Assistant and Brave Browser, each containing at least one maintainer follow-up question. Each question is mapped to the author's answer and assigned a label indicating whether the requested information could have been provided directly through the issue template. Earlier maintainer requests were associated with author responses, whereas delayed requests were associated with no response. Among responding authors, requests within one hour received median replies after 0.52 hours in Home Assistant and 1.45 hours in Brave, versus 9.76 and 13.49 hours after four hours. BRQGen covered 35.4% (Qwen 3.8 Flash) to 51.8% (DeepSeek V4.1 Flash) of the 1,073 ground-truth follow-up questions. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash managed to ask 45.7% of all detailed questions and 63.9% of all generic questions. Gemini 3 Flash Preview reached the highest macro-F1 for completeness assessment of 49.3%, but with a post-hoc analysis by getting only the gaps with high severities, Qwen 3.8 Flash reaches 73.6% macro-F1 score. Completeness assessment improved when at least one identified gap had high severity, and nearly all ground-truth questions were captured within the first two iterations.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Software Engineering
Verifying Autoware Controller Node by Combining Model Verification and Runtime Monitoring
When Agent Evaluation Becomes Unreliable: An Empirical Study of Oracle Failures and Configuration-Dependent Measurement in an LLM Agent Benchmark
PassSum: Leveraging Paths of Abstract Syntax Trees and Self-Supervision for Code Summarization
SafeDSE: Joint Exploration of Safety Architecture Patterns, Mapping, and Scheduling for Dataflow Applications With Safety Arguments (Extended Version)
Comparing the Pre-trained Models of Source Code by Re-pre-training under a Unified Setup
Get the few papers worth your time in Software Engineering every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.