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

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

Test Case Purification for Improving Fault Localization

Finding and fixing bugs are time-consuming activities in software development. Spectrum-based fault localization aims to identify the faulty position in source code based on the execution trace of test cases. Failing test cases and their assertions form test oracles for the failing behavior of the system under analysis. In this paper, we propose a novel concept of spectrum driven test case purification for improving fault localization. The goal of test case purification is to separate existing test cases into small fractions (called purified test cases) and to enhance the test oracles to further localize faults. Combining with an original fault localization technique (e.g., Tarantula), test case purification results in better ranking the program statements. Our experiments on 1800 faults in six open-source Java programs show that test case purification can effectively improve existing fault localization techniques

LNCS

Static program analyzers are increasingly effective in checking correctness properties of programs and reporting any errors found, often in the form of error traces. However, developers still spend a significant amount of time on debugging. This involves processing long error traces in an effort to localize a bug to a relatively small part of the program and to identify its cause. In this paper, we present a technique for automated fault localization that, given a program and an error trace, efficiently narrows down the cause of the error to a few statements. These statements are then ranked in terms of their suspiciousness. Our technique relies only on the semantics of the given program and does not require any test cases or user guidance. In experiments on a set of C benchmarks, we show that our technique is effective in quickly isolating the cause of error while out-performing other state-of-the-art fault-localization techniques

Automatically Repairing Programs Using Both Tests and Bug Reports

The success of automated program repair (APR) depends significantly on its ability to localize the defects it is repairing. For fault localization (FL), APR tools typically use either spectrum-based (SBFL) techniques that use test executions or information-retrieval-based (IRFL) techniques that use bug reports. These two approaches often complement each other, patching different defects. No existing repair tool uses both SBFL and IRFL. We develop RAFL (Rank-Aggregation-Based Fault Localization), a novel FL approach that combines multiple FL techniques. We also develop Blues, a new IRFL technique that uses bug reports, and an unsupervised approach to localize defects. On a dataset of 818 real-world defects, SBIR (combined SBFL and Blues) consistently localizes more bugs and ranks buggy statements higher than the two underlying techniques. For example, SBIR correctly identifies a buggy statement as the most suspicious for 18.1% of the defects, while SBFL does so for 10.9% and Blues for 3.1%. We extend SimFix, a state-of-the-art APR tool, to use SBIR, SBFL, and Blues. SimFix using SBIR patches 112 out of the 818 defects; 110 when using SBFL, and 55 when using Blues. The 112 patched defects include 55 defects patched exclusively using SBFL, 7 patched exclusively using IRFL, 47 patched using both SBFL and IRFL and 3 new defects. SimFix using Blues significantly outperforms iFixR, the state-of-the-art IRFL-based APR tool. Overall, SimFix using our FL techniques patches ten defects no prior tools could patch. By evaluating on a benchmark of 818 defects, 442 previously unused in APR evaluations, we find that prior evaluations on the overused Defects4J benchmark have led to overly generous findings. Our paper is the first to (1) use combined FL for APR, (2) apply a more rigorous methodology for measuring patch correctness, and (3) evaluate on the new, substantially larger version of Defects4J.Comment: working pape