Cited by 163Software Testing and Debugging TechniquesSoftware Engineering ResearchSoftware System Performance and Reliability

Boosting coverage-based fault localization via graph-based representation learning

Lou, Yiling, Zhu, Qihao, Dong, Jinhao, Li, Xia, Sun, Zeyu, Hao, Dan, Zhang, Lu, Zhang, Lingming·2021·Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering

Abstract

Coverage-based fault localization has been extensively studied in the literature due to its effectiveness and lightweightness for real-world systems. However, existing techniques often utilize coverage in an oversimplified way by abstracting detailed coverage into numbers of tests or boolean vectors, thus limiting their effectiveness in practice. In this work, we present a novel coverage-based fault localization technique, GRACE, which fully utilizes detailed coverage information with graph-based representation learning. Our intuition is that coverage can be regarded as connective relationships between tests and program entities, which can be inherently and integrally represented by a graph structure: with tests and program entities as nodes, while with coverage and code structures as edges. Therefore, we first propose a novel graph-based representation to reserve all detailed coverage information and fine-grained code structures into one graph. Then we leverage Gated Graph Neural Network to learn valuable features from the graph-based coverage representation and rank program entities in a listwise way. Our evaluation on the widely used benchmark Defects4J (V1.2.0) shows that GRACE significantly outperforms state-of-the-art coverage-based fault localization: GRACE localizes 195 bugs within Top-1 whereas the best compared technique can at most localize 166 bugs within Top-1. We further investigate the impact of each GRACE component and find that they all positively contribute…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3468264.3468580

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lou, Y., Zhu, Q., Dong, J., Li, X., Sun, Z., Hao, D., Zhang, L., & Zhang, L.
Affiliations
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Kennesaw State University (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering
Publisher
ACM
Published
2021-08-18
Pages
664-676
OpenAlex
W3195442242
Cited by
163
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 1
FWCI
14.84
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2017YFB1001803)
  • National Science Foundation (CCF-1763906, CCF-1942430)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61872008)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
Keywords
graph representation learning, gated graph neural networks, test coverage, listwise ranking, Defects4J

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