Assisting developers towards fault localization by analyzing failure reports
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large software applications encompass many components with complex interdependencies. When a failure occurs, developers usually have limited information and time in their disposal for localizing the root cause of the observed failure. The most common information developers have readily access to includes failure reports, stack traces, and event logs. In this context, a major challenge is to devise techniques that assist developers utilize this information in order to zero-in their focus on specific methods that have a high probability of containing the root cause of the observed failure. Once such an initial set of methods has been identified, other more elaborate, complex, and computationally expensive data flow analyses could be applied. In this paper, we present a technique which aims to identify such an initial set of suspicious methods by first, retrieving information from failure reports obtained from Bugzilla repositories, second by combining this information with graph models that denote actual dependencies obtained from the subject system's source code in order to create an hypothesis space and third, by applying a ranking score to identify methods that have high likelihood of containing the root cause. The technique is shown to be tractable when applied to systems with several thousands of source code methods and the results exhibit high accuracy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it