An Automated Approach to Predict Effectiveness of Fault Localization Tools Tien-Duy B. Le, and David...

An Automated Approach to Predict Effectiveness of Fault Localization Tools

Tien-Duy B. Le, and David LoSchool of Information Systems

Singapore Management University

Will Fault Localization Work For These Failures ?

29th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance

Fault Localization Tool: A Primer

Give me a failing program

I have calculated the most suspicious location of bugs

Running

…

1)

2)

3)

4)

OK! I will check your suggestion

Debugging

My program failed

3

Will Fault Localization Tools Really Work?

• In ideal case:– Faulty statements are within a few suspicious

statements, e.g. 10, 20, 30 …

…

1)

2)

3)

4)

I found the bugDebugging

Effectiv

e

4

Will Fault Localization Tools Really Work?

• In the worst case:– Faulty statements cannot be found early in

the ranked list of statements– Time consuming

…

1)

2)

3)

4)

Debugging Forever Debugging

Effectiv

e

5

Will Fault Localization Tools Really Work?

• We build an oracle to predict if an output of a fault localization tool (i.e., instance) can be trusted or not.

• If not trusted– Developers do not have to spend time using the output– Developers can revert to manual debugging

Trusted or not ?

Oracle Ball

6

Overall Framework

Suspiciousness Scores

Spectra

Fault Localization

Feature Extraction

Model Learning1 2

Effectiveness Labels

Training Stage

Model

7

Overall Framework

• Major Components:– Feature Extraction

• 50 features, 6 categories– Model Learning

• We extend Support Vector Machine (SVM) to handle imbalanced training data.

8

Feature Extraction

Traces (5 Features)T1 # traces

T2 # failing traces

T3 # successful traces

…

Program Elements (10 Features)PE1 # program elements in failing traces

PE2 # program elements in correct traces

PE3 PE2 – PE1

…

9

Feature Extraction

Raw Scores (10 Features)R1 Highest suspiciousness scores

R2 Second highest suspiciousness scores

Ri ith highest suspiciousness scores

…

Simple Statistics (6 Features)SS1 Number of distinct scores in the top-10 scores

SS2 Mean of top-10 suspiciousness scores

SS3 Median of top-10 suspiciousness scores

…

10

Feature ExtractionGaps (11 Features)

G1 R1 – R2

G2 R2 – R3

Gi Ri – R(i+1), where

…

Relative Difference (8 Features)RD1

RDi101

102

RR

RR

)82( where,101

101 iRR

RRi

)93( i

Model Learning• Extend off-the-shell Support Vector Machine• Imbalanced training data

– #ineffective instances > #effective instancesExtended Support Vector Machine (SVMEXT)

11

Maximum Marginal Hyperplane

Effective instances

Ineffective instances

12

SVMEXT

• For each effective instance, – We calculate its similarities to ineffective instances– Each instance is represented by a feature vector– Using cosine similarity:

)11(

)()(

)(50

1

250

1

2

50

1

p

ba

bap

i ii i

i ii

13

SVMEXT

• Sort effective instances based on their highest similarities with ineffective instances (descending)

• Duplicate effective instances at the top of the list until training data is balanced.

selected effective instances

Effective instances

Ineffective instances

Overall Framework

14

Model

Suspiciousness Scores

Spectra

Fault Localization

Feature Extraction

Effectiveness Prediction

Prediction

Deployment Stage

1 3

15

Experiments

RecallPrecision

RecallPrecision2Measure-F

Recall

Precision

FNTP

TPFPTP

TP

.

• We use 10 fold cross validation.• We compute precision, recall and F-measure.

16

Effectiveness Labeling

• A fault localization instance is deemed effective if:– Root cause is among the top-10 most

suspicious program elements– If a root cause spans more than 1 program

elements• One of them is in the top-10

– Otherwise, it is ineffective

17

Dataset

• 10 different programs: – NanoXML, XML-Security, and Space– 7 programs from the Siemens test suites

• Totally, 200 faulty versions• For Tarantula, among the 200 instances:

– 85 are effective– 115 are ineffective

18

Research Question 1

• How effective is our approach in predicting the effectiveness of a state-of-the-art spectrum-based fault localization tool ?

• Experimental setting:– Tarantula – Using Extended SVM (SVMEXT)

19

Research Question 1

• Precision of 54.36%– Correctly identify 47 out of 115 ineffective fault

localization instances• Recall of 95.29%

– Correctly identify 81 out of 85 effective fault localization instances

Precision Recall F-Measure54.36% 95.29% 69.23%

20

Research Question 2

• How effective is our extended Support Vector Machine(SVMExt) compared with off-the-shelf Support Vector Machine (SVM) ?

• Experimental Setting– Tarantula – Using extended SVM (SVMEXT) and off-the-

shelf SVM

21

Research Question 2

• Result

SVMEXT outperforms off-the-shelf SVM

SVMEXT SVM ImprovementPrecision 54.36% 51.04% 6.50%Recall 95.29% 57.65% 65.29%F-Measure 69.23% 54.14% 27.87%

22

Research Question 3

• What are the most important features ?– Fisher score is used to measure how

dominant and discriminative a feature is.

23

Top-10 Most Discriminative Features

50%

30%

10%

10%Relative Differences (5)

Program Elements (3)

Raw Scores (1)

Simple Statistics (1)

Gaps (0)

Traces (0)

1. RD72. RD83. RD64. PE15. PE26. SS17. RD58. RD19. PE410.R1

24

Most Important Features

• Relative Differences Features – C7

(1), C8(2), C6

(3), C5(7), and C1

(8)

score) nesssuspicioushighest i :(R

)82( where,

thi

101

101

101

1021

iRR

RRC

RR

RRC

ii

25

Most Important Features

• Program Elements– PE1

(4), PE2(5), and PE4

(9)

Failing Traces Correct Traces

#Program Elements PE1 PE2

2

14

PE

PEPE

26

Most Important Features

• Simple Statistics– SS1(6): Number of distinct suspiciousness

scores in {R1,…,R10}

• Raw Scores– R1

(10): Highest suspiciousness scores

27

Research Question 4

• Could our approach be used to predict the effectiveness of different types of spectrum-based fault localization tool ?

• Experimental setting:– Tarantula, Ochiai, and Information Gain– Using Extended SVM (SVMEXT)

28

Research Question 4

Tool Precision Recall F-Measure

Tarantula 54.36% 95.29% 69.23%

Ochiai 63.23% 97.03% 76.56%

Information Gain 64.47% 93.33% 76.26%

• F-Measure for Ochiai and Information Gain– Greater than 75%– Our approach can better predict the effectiveness of

Ochiai and Information Gain

29

Research Question 5

• How sensitive is our approach to the amount of training data ?

• Experimental setting:– Vary amount of training data from 10% to 90%– Random sampling

30

Research Question 5

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Precision Recall F-Measure

Amount of Training Data

31

Conclusion

• We build an oracle to predict the effectiveness of fault localization tools.– Propose 50 features capturing interesting

dimensions from traces and susp. scores– Propose Extend. Support Vector Machine (SVMEXT)

• Experiments– Achieve good F-Measure: 69.23% (Tarantula)– SVMEXT outperforms off-the-shelf SVM– Relative difference features are the best features

32

Future work

• Improve F-Measure further• Extend approach to work for other fault

localization techniques• Extract more features from source code

and textual descriptions, e.g., bug reports.

33

Thank you!

Questions? Comments? Advice?{btdle.2012, davidlo}@smu.edu.sg