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.
Like other fault localisation (FL) techniques, tries to locate faults in a SUT based on dynamic information @cite_26 . The most widely studied FL approach is Spectrum-based Fault Localisation (SBFL) @cite_38 @cite_18 @cite_5 which combines code coverage and test outcomes to rank code locations by their . FLUCCS @cite_33 is a state-of-the-art FL technique which aggregates multiple SBFL techniques and improves predictions with software defect prediction metrics, both static code as well as change metrics. Like other SBFL techniques, FLUCCS is more costly than since it requires code coverage information for the SUT version on which the tests failed. While also depends on dynamic information, it not only eliminates the need for code instrumentations, but can perform the dynamic (i.e., mutation) analysis ahead-of-time. This allows the cost to be amortized over multiple development iterations and allows faster feedback when a failure is observed.
@cite_38 @cite_18 @cite_26 @cite_33 @cite_5
1990785546 1950030762 2620081107 2070249305
We present MUSE (MUtation-baSEd fault localization technique), a new fault localization technique based on mutation analysis. A key idea of MUSE is to identify a faulty statement by utilizing different characteristics of two groups of mutants-one that mutates a faulty statement and the other that mutates a correct statement. We also propose a new evaluation metric for fault localization techniques based on information theory, called Locality Information Loss (LIL): it can measure the aptitude of a localization technique for automated fault repair systems as well as human debuggers. The empirical evaluation using 14 faulty versions of the five real-world programs shows that MUSE localizes a fault after reviewing 7.4 statements on average, which is about 25 times more precise than the state-of-the-art SBFL technique Op2. Fault localization methods seek to identify faulty program statements based on the information provided by the failing and passing test executions. Spectrum-based methods are among the most popular ones and assist programmers by assigning suspiciousness values on program statements according to their probability of being faulty. This paper proposes Met allaxis, a fault localization approach based on mutation analysis. The innovative part of Met allaxis is that it uses mutants and links them with the faulty program places. Thus, mutants that are killed mostly by failing tests provide a good indication about the location of a fault. Experimentation using Met allaxis suggests that it is significantly more effective than statement-based approaches. This is true even in the case where mutation cost-reduction techniques, such as mutant sampling, are facilitated. Additionally, results from a controlled experiment show that the use of mutation as a testing technique provides benefits to the fault localization process. Therefore, fault localization is significantly improved by using mutation-based tests instead of block-based or branch-based test suites. Finally, evidence in support of the methods' scalability is also given. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Most fault localization techniques take as input a faulty program, and produce as output a ranked list of suspicious code locations at which the program may be defective. When researchers propose a new fault localization technique, they typically evaluate it on programs with known faults. The technique is scored based on where in its output list the defective code appears. This enables the comparison of multiple fault localization techniques to determine which one is better. Previous research has evaluated fault localization techniques using artificial faults, generated either by mutation tools or manually. In other words, previous research has determined which fault localization techniques are best at finding artificial faults. However, it is not known which fault localization techniques are best at finding real faults. It is not obvious that the answer is the same, given previous work showing that artificial faults have both similarities to and differences from real faults. We performed a replication study to evaluate 10 claims in the literature that compared fault localization techniques (from the spectrum-based and mutation-based families). We used 2995 artificial faults in 6 real-world programs. Our results support 7 of the previous claims as statistically significant, but only 3 as having non-negligible effect sizes. Then, we evaluated the same 10 claims, using 310 real faults from the 6 programs. Every previous result was refuted or was statistically and practically insignificant. Our experiments show that artificial faults are not useful for predicting which fault localization techniques perform best on real faults. In light of these results, we identified a design space that includes many previously-studied fault localization techniques as well as hundreds of new techniques. We experimentally determined which factors in the design space are most important, using an overall set of 395 real faults. Then, we extended this design space with new techniques. Several of our novel techniques outperform all existing techniques, notably in terms of ranking defective code in the top-5 or top-10 reports. An important research area of Spectrum-Based Fault Localization (SBFL) is the effectiveness of risk evaluation formulas. Most previous studies have adopted an empirical approach, which can hardly be considered as sufficiently comprehensive because of the huge number of combinations of various factors in SBFL. Though some studies aimed at overcoming the limitations of the empirical approach, none of them has provided a completely satisfactory solution. Therefore, we provide a theoretical investigation on the effectiveness of risk evaluation formulas. We define two types of relations between formulas, namely, equivalent and better. To identify the relations between formulas, we develop an innovative framework for the theoretical investigation. Our framework is based on the concept that the determinant for the effectiveness of a formula is the number of statements with risk values higher than the risk value of the faulty statement. We group all program statements into three disjoint sets with risk values higher than, equal to, and lower than the risk value of the faulty statement, respectively. For different formulas, the sizes of their sets are compared using the notion of subset. We use this framework to identify the maximal formulas which should be the only formulas to be used in SBFL.