Lightweight fault-localization techniques use program coverage to isolate the parts of the code that are most suspicious of being faulty. In this paper, we present the results of a study of three types of program coverage—statements, branches, and data dependencies—to compare their effectiveness in localizing faults. The study shows that no single coverage type performs best for all faults—different kinds of faults are best localized by different coverage types. Based on these results, we present a new coverage-based approach to fault localization that leverages the unique qualities of each coverage type by combining them. Because data dependencies are noticeably more expensive to monitor than branches, we also investigate the effects of replacing data-dependence coverage with an approximation inferred from branch coverage. Our empirical results show that (1) the cost of fault localization using combinations of coverage is less than using any individual coverage type and closer to the best case (without knowing in advance which kinds of faults are present), and (2) using inferred data-dependence coverage retains most of the benefits of combinations.

Fault-localization techniques that utilize information about all test cases in a test suite have been presented. These techniques use various approaches to identify the likely faulty part(s) of a program, based on information about the execution of the program with the test suite. Researchers have begun to investigate the impact that the composition of the test suite has on the effectiveness of these fault-localization techniques. In this paper, we present the first experiment on one aspect of test-suite composition--test-suite reduction. Our experiment studies the impact of the test-suite reduction on the effectiveness of fault-localization techniques. In our experiment, we apply 10 test-suite reduction strategies to test suites for eight subject programs. We then measure the differences between the effectiveness of four existing fault-localization techniques on the unreduced and reduced test suites. We also measure the reduction in test-suite size of the 10 test-suite reduction strategies. Our experiment shows that fault-localization effectiveness varies depending on the test-suite reduction strategy used, and it demonstrates the trade-offs between test-suite reduction and fault-localization effectiveness.

This paper introduces two model fusion methods on a series of sub-models of Conditional Random Fields (CRFs): majority voting and feature fusion. The former performs on the results of each participant without any consideration about the underlying details of each sub-model, and the latter takes place on feature level to produce modified feature weights of CRFs to merge all sub-models into a single one. Experiments on syntactic data and part-of-speech tagging problem shows that by dividing training corpus into small parts and using model fusion techniques, comparable results will be achieved.