Which is the defect that causes a software failure? By comparing the program states of a failing and a passing run, we can identify the state differences that cause the failure. However, these state differences can occur all over the program run. Therefore, we focus in space on those variables and values that are relevant for the failure, and in time on those moments where cause transitions occur—moments where new relevant variables begin being failure causes: “Initially, variable argc was 3; therefore, at shell sort(), variable a[2] was 0, and therefore, the program failed. ” In our evaluation, cause transitions locate the failureinducing defect twice as well as the best methods known so far.

The high cost of locating faults in programs has motivated the development of techniques that assist in fault localization by automating part of the process of searching for faults. Empirical studies that compare these techniques have reported the relative effectiveness of four existing techniques on a set of subjects. These studies compare the rankings that the techniques compute for statements in the subject programs and the effectiveness of these rankings in locating the faults. However, it is unknown how these four techniques compare with Tarantula, another existing fault-localization technique, although this technique also provides a way to rank statements in terms of their suspiciousness. Thus, we performed a study to compare the Tarantula technique with the four techniques previously compared. This paper presents our study—it overviews the Tarantula technique along with the four other techniques studied, describes our experiment, and reports and discusses the results. Our studies show that, on the same set of subjects, the Tarantula technique consistently outperforms the other four techniques in terms of effectiveness in fault localization, and is comparable in efficiency to the least expensive of the other four techniques.

In the event that a system does not satisfy a speci cation, a model checker will typically automatically produce a counterexample trace that shows a particular instance of the undesirable behavior.

Software debugging is the process of locating and correcting faulty code. Prior techniques to locate faulty code either use program analysis techniques such as backward dynamic program slicing or exclusively use delta debugging to analyze the state changes during program execution. In this paper, we present a new approach that integrates the potential of delta debugging algorithm with the benefit of forward and backward dynamic program slicing to narrow down the search for faulty code. Our approach is to use delta debugging algorithm to identify a minimal failure-inducing input, use this input to compute a forward dynamic slice and then intersect the statements in this forward dynamic slice with the statements in the backward dynamic slice of the erroneous output to compute a failure-inducing chop. We implemented our technique and conducted experiments with faulty versions of several programs from the Siemens suite to evaluate our technique. Our experiments show that failure-inducing chops can greatly reduce the size of search space compared to the dynamic slices without significantly compromising the capability to locate the faulty code. We also applied our technique to several programs with known memory related bugs such as buffer overflow bugs. The failure-inducing chop in several of these cases contained only 2 to 4 statements which included the code causing memory corruption.

Computer problem diagnosis remains a serious challenge to users and support professionals. Traditional troubleshooting methods relying heavily on human intervention make the process inefficient and the results inaccurate even for solved problems, which contribute significantly to user’s dissatisfaction. We propose to use system behavior information such as system event traces to build correlations with solved problems, instead of using only vague text descriptions as in existing practices. The goal is to enable automatic identification of the root cause of a problem if it is a known one, which would further lead to its resolution. By applying statistical learning techniques to classifying system call sequences, we show our approach can achieve considerable accuracy of root cause recognition by studying four case examples.

expensive, and that has led the investigation to how to automate them. In particular, Software Testing can take up to half of the resources of the development of new software. Although there has been a lot of work on automating the testing phase, fixing a bug after its presence has been discovered is still a duty of the programmers. In this paper we propose an evolutionary approach to automate the task of fixing bugs. This novel evolutionary approach is based on Co-evolution, in which programs and test cases co-evolve, influencing each other with the aim of fixing the bugs of the programs. This competitive co-evolution is similar to what happens in nature for predators and prey. The user needs only to provide a buggy program and a formal specification of it. No other information is required. Hence, the approach may work for any implementable software. We show some preliminary experiments in which bugs in an implementation of a sorting algorithm are automatically fixed. I.

Statistical debugging uses lightweight instrumentation and statistical models to identify program behaviors that are strongly predictive of failure. However, most software is mostly correct; nearly all monitored behaviors are poor predictors of failure. We propose an adaptive monitoring strategy that mitigates the overhead associated with monitoring poor failure predictors. We begin by monitoring a small portion of the program, then automatically refine instrumentation over time to zero in on bugs. We formulate this approach as a search on the control-dependence graph of the program. We present and evaluate various heuristics that can be used for this search. We also discuss the construction of a binary instrumentor for incorporating the feedback loop into post-deployment monitoring. Performance measurements show that adaptive bug isolation yields an average performance overhead of 1 % for a class of large applications, as opposed to 87 % for realistic sampling-based instrumentation and 300 % for complete binary instrumentation.

When a program violates its specification a model checker produces a counterexample that shows an example of undesirable behavior. It is up to the user to understand the error, locate it, and fix the problem. Previous work introduced a technique for explaining and localizing errors based on finding the closest execution to a counterexample, with respect to a distance metric. That approach was applied only to concrete executions of programs. This paper extends and generalizes the approach by combining it with predicate abstraction. Using an abstract state-space increases scalability and makes explanations more informative. Differences between executions are presented in terms of predicates derived from the specification and program, rather than specific changes to variable values. Reasoning to the cause of an error from the fact that in the failing run x < y, but in the successful execution x = y is easier than reasoning from the information that in the failing run y = 239, but in the successful execution y = 232. An abstract explanation is automatically generalized. Predicate abstraction has previously been used in model checking purely as a state-space reduction technique. However, an abstraction good enough to enable a model checking tool to find an error is also likely to be useful as an automatically generated high-level description of a state space — suitable for use by programmers. Results demonstrating the effectiveness of abstract explanations support this claim.

We describe a statistical approach to software debugging in the presence of multiple bugs. Due to sparse sampling issues and complex interaction between program predicates, many generic o#-the-shelf algorithms fail to select useful bug predictors. Taking inspiration from bi-clustering algorithms, we propose an iterative collective voting scheme for the program runs and predicates. We demonstrate successful debugging results on several real world programs and a large debugging benchmark suite.

Knowing that a program has a bug is good, knowing its location is better, but a fix is best. We present a method to automatically locate and correct faults in a finite state system, either at the gate level or at the source level. We assume that the specification is given in Linear Temporal Logic, and state the correction problem as a game, in which the protagonist selects a faulty component and suggests alternative behavior. The basic approach is complete but as complex as synthesis. It also suffers from problems of readability: the correction may add state and logic to the system. We present two heuristics. The first avoids the doubly exponential blowup associated with synthesis by using nondeterministic automata. The second heuristic finds a memoryless strategy, which we show is an NP-complete problem. A memoryless strategy corresponds to a simple, local correction that does not add any state. The drawback of the two heuristics is that they are not complete unless the specification is an invariant. Our approach is general: the user can define what constitutes a component, and the suggested correction can be an arbitrary combinational function of the current state and the inputs. We show experimental results supporting the applicability of our approach.