On the effectiveness of unified debugging

Abstract

Automated debugging techniques, including fault localization and program repair, have been studied for over a decade. However, the only existing connection between fault localization and program repair is that fault localization computes the potential buggy elements for program repair to patch. Recently, a pioneering work, ProFL, explored the idea of unified debugging to unify fault localization and program repair in the other direction for the first time to boost both areas. More specifically, ProFL utilizes the patch execution results from one state-of-the-art repair system, PraPR, to help improve state-of-the-art fault localization. In this way, ProFL not only improves fault localization for manual repair, but also extends the application scope of automated repair to all possible bugs (not only the small ratio of bugs that can be automaticallyfi xed). However, ProFL only considers one APR system (i.e., PraPR), and it is not clear how other existing APR systems based on different designs contribute to unified debugging. In this work, we perform an extensive study of the unified-debugging approach on 16 state-of-the-art program repair systems for the first time. Our experimental results on the widely studied Defects4J benchmark suite reveal various practical guidelines for unified debugging, such as (1) nearly all the studied 16 repair systems can positively contribute to unified debugging despite their varying repairing capabilities, (2) repair systems targeting multi-edit patches can bring extraneous noise into unified debugging, (3) repair systems with more executed/plausible patches tend to perform better for unified debugging, and (4) unified debugging effectiveness does not rely on the availability of correct patches in automated repair. Based on our results, we further propose an advanced unified debugging technique, UniDebug++, which can localize over 20% more bugs within Top-1 positions than state-of-the-art unified debugging technique, ProFL.