Mining Historical Test Logs to Predict Bugs and Localize Faults in the Test Logs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software testing is an integral part of modern software development. However, test runs can produce thousands of lines of logged output that make it difficult to find the cause of a fault in the logs. This problem is exacerbated by environmental failures that distract from product faults. In this paper we present techniques with the goal of capturing the maximum number of product faults, while flagging the minimum number of log lines for inspection. We observe that the location of a fault in a log should be contained in the lines of a failing test log. In contrast, a passing test log should not contain the lines related to a failure. Lines that occur in both a passing and failing log introduce noise when attempting to find the fault in a failing log. We introduce an approach where we remove the lines that occur in the passing log from the failing log. After removing these lines, we use information retrieval techniques to flag the most probable lines for investigation. We modify TF-IDF to identify the most relevant log lines related to past product failures. We then vectorize the logs and develop an exclusive version of KNN to identify which logs are likely to lead to product faults and which lines are the most probable indication of the failure. Our best approach, LogFaultFlagger finds 89% of the total faults and flags less than 1% of the total failed log lines for inspection. LogFaultFlagger drastically outperforms the previous work CAM. We implemented LogFaultFlagger as a tool at Ericsson where it presents fault prediction summaries to base station testers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".