Identifying Recurring Faulty Functions in Field Traces of a Large Industrial Software System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software maintainers use the traces of field failures to understand and diagnose faulty functions that cause the system to fail. Despite their usefulness, traces from the field can be quite overwhelming, especially for software systems with a vast client base. In the execution of realistic applications, many of them being millions of lines of code, there are just too many traces that are generated. In addition, traces are known to be extraordinarily large, which further complicates matters. Fortunately, not all field failures are caused by new faults. In fact, previous studies showed that 50% to 90% of field failures are due to previously known faults. In this paper, we propose a machine learning approach that automatically detects recurring faulty functions in the traces of new field failures. We achieve our goal by training decision trees on earlier resolved traces of system failures from the current and prior releases of the system. When applied to a large industrial system with 20 million lines of code and 200,000 functions, our approach was able to detect recurring faulty functions in the traces of field failures with an accuracy of 90%, to even 97% in some cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".