Thank you Uwe and Chris! For automatically refreshing, I think it would help if the agent can just poll 1 link/github issue and keep the website updated with new triages, fixes, verified/opened issues etc. So I've made it here: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/16937
For the two issues you mentioned, I will work on refreshing the website for both (like adding a triaged/triaged by column?) and update here. For LFV-037 (shared arena one) it will update to fix in progress in #16931 & for LFV-135 (multi-mmap offset) it will say "won't fix". For future updates just linking to the above issue or triaging there in natural language would work automatically as well. If it makes sense I can make it so that an expert in certain area can search by their name or github handle and it will show a list of bugs which might be related to their expertise (based on AI's assessment) instead of having to manually scan the whole table. Let me know if any other features in the website or the whole process would help! Thanks, Shitij On 2026/10/28 17:45:52 Uwe Schindler via dev wrote: > Hi, > > here is the first PR fixing that issue, thanks to Chris! > https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/16931 > > Not sure how to keep track of this resolved issue in your AI report: > https://shbhar.github.io/lucene-ai-bug-hunt/repro/LFV-037/ > > Uwe > > Am 28.10.2026 um 15:16 schrieb Uwe Schindler via dev: > > Hi, > > > > thanks for the great web site with all those bugs. I scrolled through > > them and of course stopped on the MMapDirectory related ones. The one > > with reporting false offsets on random access multi-mmap was > > personally known to me, but I never decided to fix it, because the > > error message is valid, just a wrong offset reported, which may > > prevent easy debugging, but on other hand to have multi-mmap indexes, > > the index segment must be larger than 16 GiB and that no longer > > happens unless you force merge. Therefor I'd ignore this one. > > > > The shared arena one looks very relevant and I always had the > > "feeling" that something is wrong with them. It was also reported to > > me privately by Gianluca Graziadei on/after Apache Community over Code > > already (or at least what I got from the report is closely related as > > it causes similar symptoms). I don't understand the issue fully, so > > maybe Chris Hegarthy can help me fixing it. > > > > Uwe > > > > Am 27.10.2026 um 19:42 schrieb Shitij Bhargava: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I work in Amazon advertising where we use Lucene for a lot of our ad > >> candidate retrieval services. We also develop custom codecs and other > >> customizations for cases where the stock Lucene options aren't > >> enough. While developing one of them, I asked an AI agent to find > >> bugs in my POC implementation, and it ended up finding an unreported > >> bug in Lucene itself. > >> > >> I kept going with this approach and it kept finding more unreported > >> bugs, so I've gone deeper into AI-assisted bug finding with formal > >> verification and other techniques. As of today the agents have found > >> 592 bugs in Lucene (and counting) that appear to be unreported in > >> GitHub or the mailing list. It also found (or already knew from its > >> training data) nearly 200 bugs that have already been reported, which > >> I'm not counting here. To avoid noise in these findings, the approach > >> has each potential bug independently and adversarially verified by a > >> second model (Claude vs GPT) with a minimal unit test repro and > >> making sure the behavior is not intended from past discussions in > >> mailing lists, tests, GitHub discussion & commit/PR history. > >> > >> Many of them seem to be minor or low impact (392 low, 196 medium, 4 > >> high classified by AI), but a few look important. For example: > >> - After a flush where the only changes are doc-values updates, > >> openIfChanged returns null and isCurrent() stays true so the update > >> can be missed: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/16900 > >> - HNSW merge-time graph reuse can leave the entry node with no > >> neighbours, which drops kNN recall to zero in 10.4.0 and later: > >> https://shbhar.github.io/lucene-ai-bug-hunt/bugs/LFV-005.html > >> > >> I've posted the full running list with some categorization here: > >> https://shbhar.github.io/lucene-ai-bug-hunt/. I've excluded a few > >> that might be security sensitive according to AI, will send them > >> privately to security@ soon. > >> > >> I'm working on understanding, triaging and verifying them myself, > >> then filing issues on GitHub in my own words in line with Lucene's AI > >> policy (so far I've filed only one). The agents help by preparing > >> minimal repro tests, diagrams and short explainer videos (not on site > >> yet) for surrounding context, but understanding and verifying each > >> bug properly still takes a lot of time, and the community's help > >> would make a big difference. > >> > >> Creating this thread to start a discussion on how to validate and > >> make these findings actually useful, in particular: > >> - Could folks help in spot-checking some bugs for areas they might be > >> familiar with? > >> - Is it beneficial to track this work in an umbrella github issue? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Shitij > > > -- > Uwe Schindler > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > https://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
