Information Retrieval (IR) approaches are nowadays used to support various software engineering tasks, such as feature location, traceability link recovery, clone detection, or refactoring. However, previous studies showed that inadequate instantiation of an IR technique and underlying process could significantly affect the performance of such approaches in terms of precision and recall. This paper proposes the use of Genetic Algorithms (GAs) to automatically configure and assemble an IR process for software engineering tasks. The approach (named GA-IR) determines the (near) optimal solution to be used for each stage of the IR process, i.e., term extraction, stop word removal, stemming, indexing and an IR algebraic method calibration. We applied GA-IR on two different software engineering tasks, namely traceability link recovery and identification of duplicate bug reports. The results of the study indicate that GA-IR outperforms approaches previously published in the literature, and that it does not significantly differ from an ideal upper bound that could be achieved by a supervised and combinatorial approach.

Feature location is a fundamental step in software evolution tasks such as debugging, understanding, and reuse. Numerous automated and semi-automated feature location techniques (FLTs) have been proposed, but the question remains: How do we objectively determine which FLT is most effective? Existing evaluations frequently use bug fix data, which includes the location of the fix, but not what other code needs to be understood to make the fix. Existing evaluation measures such as precision, recall, effectiveness, mean average precision (MAP), and mean reciprocal rank (MRR) will not differentiate between a FLT that ranks higher these related elements over completely irrelevant ones. We propose an alternative measure of relevance based on the likelihood of a developer finding the bug fix locations from a ranked list of results. Our initial evaluation shows that by modeling user behavior, our proposed evaluation methodology can compare and evaluate FLTs fairly.