Paper detail

It Takes Two to Tango: Combining Visual and Textual Information for Detecting Duplicate Video-Based Bug Reports

When a bug manifests in a user-facing application, it is likely to be exposed through the graphical user interface (GUI). Given the importance of visual information to the process of identifying and understanding such bugs, users are increasingly making use of screenshots and screen-recordings as a means to report issues to developers. However, when such information is reported en masse, such as during crowd-sourced testing, managing these artifacts can be a time-consuming process. As the reporting of screen-recordings in particular becomes more popular, developers are likely to face challenges related to manually identifying videos that depict duplicate bugs. Due to their graphical nature, screen-recordings present challenges for automated analysis that preclude the use of current duplicate bug report detection techniques. To overcome these challenges and aid developers in this task, this paper presents Tango, a duplicate detection technique that operates purely on video-based bug reports by leveraging both visual and textual information. Tango combines tailored computer vision techniques, optical character recognition, and text retrieval. We evaluated multiple configurations of Tango in a comprehensive empirical evaluation on 4,860 duplicate detection tasks that involved a total of 180 screen-recordings from six Android apps. Additionally, we conducted a user study investigating the effort required for developers to manually detect duplicate video-based bug reports and compared this to the effort required to use Tango. The results reveal that Tango's optimal configuration is highly effective at detecting duplicate video-based bug reports, accurately ranking target duplicate videos in the top-2 returned results in 83% of the tasks. Additionally, our user study shows that, on average, Tango can reduce developer effort by over 60%, illustrating its practicality.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.