Fault localization is a critical process that involves identifying specific program elements responsible for program failures. Manually pinpointing these elements, such as classes, methods, or statements, which are associated with a fault is laborious and time-consuming. To overcome this challenge, various fault localization tools have been developed. These tools typically generate a ranked list of suspicious program elements. However, this information alone is insufficient. A prior study emphasized that automated fault localization should offer a rationale. In this study, we investigate the step-by-step reasoning for explainable fault localization. We explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLM) in assisting developers in reasoning about code. We proposed FuseFL that utilizes several combinations of information to enhance the LLM results which are spectrum-based fault localization results, test case execution outcomes, and code description (i.e., explanation of what the given code is intended to do). We conducted our investigation using faulty code from Refactory dataset. First, we evaluate the performance of the automated fault localization. Our results demonstrate a 32.3 % increase in the number of successfully localized faults at Top-1 compared to the baseline. To evaluate the explanations generated by FuseFL, we create a dataset of human explanations that provide step-by-step reasoning as to why specific lines of code are considered faulty. This dataset consists of 324 faulty code files, along with explanations for 600 faulty lines. Furthermore, we also conducted human studies to evaluate the explanations. We found that for 22 out of the 30 randomly sampled cases, FuseFL generated correct explanations.

With the increasing reliance on Open Source Software, users are exposed to third-party library vulnerabilities. Software Composition Analysis (SCA) tools have been created to alert users of such vulnerabilities. SCA requires the identification of vulnerability-fixing commits. Prior works have proposed methods that can automatically identify such vulnerability-fixing commits. However, identifying such commits is highly challenging, as only a very small minority of commits are vulnerability fixing. Moreover, code changes can be noisy and difficult to analyze. We observe that noise can occur at different levels of detail, making it challenging to detect vulnerability fixes accurately. To address these challenges and boost the effectiveness of prior works, we propose MiDas (Multi-Granularity Detector for Vulnerability Fixes). Unique from prior works, MiDas constructs different neural networks for each level of code change granularity, corresponding to commit-level, file-level, hunk-level, and line-level, following their natural organization. It then utilizes an ensemble model that combines all base models to generate the final prediction. This design allows MiDas to better handle the noisy and highly imbalanced nature of vulnerability-fixing commit data. Additionally, to reduce the human effort required to inspect code changes, we have designed an effort-aware adjustment for MiDas's outputs based on commit length. The evaluation results demonstrate that MiDas outperforms the current state-of-the-art baseline in terms of AUC by 4.9% and 13.7% on Java and Python-based datasets, respectively. Furthermore, in terms of two effort-aware metrics, EffortCost@L and Popt@L, MiDas also outperforms the state-of-the-art baseline, achieving improvements of up to 28.2% and 15.9% on Java, and 60% and 51.4% on Python, respectively.

Modern software engineering projects often depend on open-source software libraries, rendering them vulnerable to potential security issues in these libraries. Developers of client projects have to stay alert of security threats in the software dependencies. While there are existing tools that allow developers to assess if a library vulnerability is reachable from a project, they face limitations. Call graph-only approaches may produce false alarms as the client project may not use the vulnerable code in a way that triggers the vulnerability, while test generation-based approaches faces difficulties in overcoming the intrinsic complexity of exploiting a vulnerability, where extensive domain knowledge may be required to produce a vulnerability-triggering input.

Constructing a static call graph requires trade-offs between soundness and precision. Program analysis techniques for constructing call graphs are unfortunately usually imprecise. To address this problem, researchers have recently proposed call graph pruning empowered by machine learning to post-process call graphs constructed by static analysis. A machine learning model is built to capture information from the call graph by extracting structural features for use in a random forest classifier. It then removes edges that are predicted to be false positives. Despite the improvements shown by machine learning models, they are still limited as they do not consider the source code semantics and thus often are not able to effectively distinguish true and false positives.

Open-source software (OSS) vulnerability management process is important nowadays, as the number of discovered OSS vulnerabilities is increasing over time. Monitoring vulnerability-fixing commits is a part of the standard process to prevent vulnerability exploitation. Manually detecting vulnerability-fixing commits is, however, time-consuming due to the possibly large number of commits to review. Recently, many techniques have been proposed to automatically detect vulnerability-fixing commits using machine learning. These solutions either: (1) did not use deep learning, or (2) use deep learning on only limited sources of information. This paper proposes VulCurator, a tool that leverages deep learning on richer sources of information, including commit messages, code changes and issue reports for vulnerability-fixing commit classification. Our experimental results show that VulCurator outperforms the state-of-the-art baselines up to 16.1% in terms of F1-score.