How Programmers Debug, Revisited: An Information Foraging Theory Perspective
Abstract
Many theories of human debugging rely on complex mental constructs that offer little practical advice to builders of software engineering tools. Although hypotheses are important in debugging, a theory of navigation adds more practical value to our understanding of how programmers debug. Therefore, in this paper, we reconsider how people go about debugging in large collections of source code using a modern programming environment. We present an information foraging theory of debugging that treats programmer navigation during debugging as being analogous to a predator following scent to find prey in the wild. The theory proposes that constructs of scent and topology provide enough information to describe and predict programmer navigation during debugging, without reference to mental states such as hypotheses. We investigate the scope of our theory through an empirical study of 10 professional programmers debugging a real-world open source program. We found that the programmers' verbalizations far more often concerned scent-following than hypotheses. To evaluate the predictiveness of our theory, we created an executable model that predicted programmer navigation behavior more accurately than comparable models that did not consider information scent. Finally, we discuss the implications of our results for enhancing software engineering tools.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Little is known at the foundational level about how well developers can predict the value and cost of their navigations, and SE research has not systematically considered this.
“Despite these gains, however, little is known at the foundational level of developer navigation-how well developers go about choosing where to navigate.”
From Foraging and navigations, fundamentally: developers' predictions of value and cost (2016) · cites this paper as [26]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 59 · Cited by 142
- Authors
- Lawrance, J., Bogart, C., Burnett, M., Bellamy, R., Rector, K., & Fleming, S. D.
- Affiliations
- Oregon State University (US)
- IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center (US)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2013-02
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 197-215
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2042950801
- Cited by
- 142
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 15.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Keywords
- information foraging theory, information scent, verbalization, software engineering tools
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review