Software bug reports often lack crucial information (e.g., steps to reproduce), which makes bug resolution challenging. Developers thus ask follow-up questions to capture additional information. However, according to existing evidence, bug reporters often face difficulties answering them, which leads to the premature closing of bug reports without any resolution. Recent studies suggest follow-up questions to support the developers, but answering the follow-up questions still remains a major challenge. In this paper, we propose BugMentor, a novel approach that combines structured information retrieval and neural text generation (e.g., Mistral) to generate appropriate answers to the follow-up questions. Our technique identifies the past relevant bug reports to a given bug report, captures contextual information, and then leverages it to generate the answers. We evaluate our generated answers against the ground truth answers using four appropriate metrics, including BLEU Score and Semantic Similarity. We achieve a BLEU Score of up to 72 and Semantic Similarity of up to 92 indicating that our technique can generate understandable and good answers to the follow-up questions according to Google’s AutoML Translation documentation. Our technique also outperforms four existing baselines with a statistically significant margin. We also conduct a developer study involving 23 participants where the answers from our technique were found to be more accurate, more precise, more concise and more useful. • BugMentor combines structured retrieval and neural text generation for bug Q&A. • Incorporating the retrieved bug report context significantly improves the generated answers. • BugMentor outperforms four existing baselines. • BugMentor is compatible with multiple large language models (e.g., Llama or Mistral). • BugMentor aims to reduce developer time spent on follow-up question resolution.

Duplicate bug reports make up 42% of all reports in bug tracking systems (e.g., Bugzilla), causing significant maintenance overhead. Hence, detecting and resolving duplicate bug reports is essential for effective issue management. Traditional techniques often focus on detecting textually similar duplicates. However, existing literature has shown that up to 23% of the duplicate bug reports are textually dissimilar. Moreover, about 78% of bug reports in open-source projects are very short (e.g., less than 100 words) often containing domain-specific terms or jargon, making the detection of their duplicate bug reports difficult. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale empirical study to investigate whether and how enrichment of bug reports with the explanations of their domain terms or jargon can help improve the detection of duplicate bug reports. We use 92,854 bug reports from three open-source systems, replicate seven existing baseline techniques for duplicate bug report detection, and answer two research questions in this work. We found significant performance gains in the existing techniques when explanations of domain-specific terms or jargon were leveraged to enrich the bug reports. Our findings also suggest that enriching bug reports with such explanations can significantly improve the detection of duplicate bug reports that are textually dissimilar.