Cited by 142Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

How Programmers Debug, Revisited: An Information Foraging Theory Perspective

Lawrance, Joseph, Bogart, Christopher, Burnett, Margaret, Bellamy, Rachel, Rector, Kyle, Fleming, Scott D.·2013·IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

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

Crossref · 10.1109/tse.2010.111

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”

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