You Cannot Fix What You Cannot Find! An Investigation of Fault Localization Bias in Benchmarking Automated Program Repair Systems

Properly benchmarking Automated Program Repair (APR) systems should contribute to the development and adoption of the research outputs by practitioners. To that end, the research community must ensure that it reaches significant milestones by reliably comparing state-of-the-art tools for a better understanding of their strengths and weaknesses. In this work, we identify and investigate a practical bias caused by the fault localization (FL) step in a repair pipeline. We propose to highlight the different fault localization configurations used in the literature, and their impact on APR systems when applied to the Defects4J benchmark. Then, we explore the performance variations that can be achieved by `tweaking' the FL step. Eventually, we expect to create a new momentum for (1) full disclosure of APR experimental procedures with respect to FL, (2) realistic expectations of repairing bugs in Defects4J, as well as (3) reliable performance comparison among the state-of-the-art APR systems, and against the baseline performance results of our thoroughly assessed kPAR repair tool. Our main findings include: (a) only a subset of Defects4J bugs can be currently localized by commonly-used FL techniques; (b) current practice of comparing state-of-the-art APR systems (i.e., counting the number of fixed bugs) is potentially misleading due to the bias of FL configurations; and (c) APR authors do not properly qualify their performance achievement with respect to the different tuning parameters implemented in APR systems.Comment: Accepted by ICST 201

Amortising the Cost of Mutation Based Fault Localisation using Statistical Inference

Mutation analysis can effectively capture the dependency between source code and test results. This has been exploited by Mutation Based Fault Localisation (MBFL) techniques. However, MBFL techniques suffer from the need to expend the high cost of mutation analysis after the observation of failures, which may present a challenge for its practical adoption. We introduce SIMFL (Statistical Inference for Mutation-based Fault Localisation), an MBFL technique that allows users to perform the mutation analysis in advance against an earlier version of the system. SIMFL uses mutants as artificial faults and aims to learn the failure patterns among test cases against different locations of mutations. Once a failure is observed, SIMFL requires either almost no or very small additional cost for analysis, depending on the used inference model. An empirical evaluation of SIMFL using 355 faults in Defects4J shows that SIMFL can successfully localise up to 103 faults at the top, and 152 faults within the top five, on par with state-of-the-art alternatives. The cost of mutation analysis can be further reduced by mutation sampling: SIMFL retains over 80% of its localisation accuracy at the top rank when using only 10% of generated mutants, compared to results obtained without sampling

Spectrum-Based Fault Localization in Model Transformations

Model transformations play a cornerstone role in Model-Driven Engineering (MDE), as they provide the essential mechanisms for manipulating and transforming models. The correctness of software built using MDE techniques greatly relies on the correctness of model transformations. However, it is challenging and error prone to debug them, and the situation gets more critical as the size and complexity of model transformations grow, where manual debugging is no longer possible. Spectrum-Based Fault Localization (SBFL) uses the results of test cases and their corresponding code coverage information to estimate the likelihood of each program component (e.g., statements) of being faulty. In this article we present an approach to apply SBFL for locating the faulty rules in model transformations. We evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of the approach by comparing the effectiveness of 18 different stateof- the-art SBFL techniques at locating faults in model transformations. Evaluation results revealed that the best techniques, namely Kulcynski2, Mountford, Ochiai, and Zoltar, lead the debugger to inspect a maximum of three rules to locate the bug in around 74% of the cases. Furthermore, we compare our approach with a static approach for fault localization in model transformations, observing a clear superiority of the proposed SBFL-based method.Comisión Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnología TIN2015-70560-RJunta de Andalucía P12-TIC-186