Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 6 minor 27 references

Software Fault Localization Based on Multi-objective Feature Fusion and Deep Learning

T0 review · 6 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that fusing spectrum, mutation, and text features via multi-objective selection improves fault localization: RNN-FL ranks 221 of 434 faulty statements first, beating DeepFL by 7.67% and cutting runtime by 78.2%.

desk verdict The paper's feature-fusion pipeline is a plausible incremental combination, but its headline accuracy numbers are contradicted by its own tables and the multi-objective core is underspecified. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17101 v1 pith:5DPLGMMV submitted 2024-11-26 cs.SE

Xiaolei Hu , Dongcheng Li , W. Eric Wong , Ya Zou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SE
keywords softwarefaultlocalizationmulti-objectiveoptimizationfeaturefusionspectrum-basedfeaturesmutation-basedtext-baseddeeplearningDefects4J
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that fault localization improves when feature selection is treated as a multi-objective optimization problem over three complementary feature families: spectrum-based, mutation-based, and text-based. It proposes a pipeline that uses NSGA-II, MOPSO, or MODE to pick compact feature subsets, fuses them by voting and weighting, and feeds the result into an MLP or a gated recurrent network. On 434 Defects4J faults, the best model, RNN-FL, ranks the faulty statement first in 221 cases, beats the DeepFL baseline by 7.67% in average accuracy, and cuts processing time by 78.2% relative to single-objective selection. The same design transfers to the PROMISE dataset with a 4.6% cross-project gain. If correct, this would show that the bottleneck in learning-based fault localization is not just the classifier but the diversity and selection of features fed to it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is feature selection as a multi-objective optimization problem over a binary-coded chromosome, where each bit marks whether a spectrum, mutation, or text feature survives. NSGA-II, MOPSO, and MODE search for Pareto-optimal subsets; the surviving subsets are then fused by voting and weighting to yield an ordered feature vector, which is embedded into MLP-FL and RNN-FL, the latter built around gated recurrent units. The paper computes three objectives, accuracy, stability, and runtime, and uses crowding distance and adaptive mutation to guide the search; the multi-objective stage is what the authors credit with cutting runtime by 78.2% while improving localization accuracy.

What would settle it

Run the MLP-FL and RNN-FL pipelines on Defects4J with (i) the multi-objective-selected fused feature subsets, (ii) the unselected full feature set, and (iii) random subsets of equal size, holding network and hyperparameters fixed; if (ii) or (iii) matches or beats the reported Top-1 and AUC values, the multi-objective selection is not what drives the 7.67% gain. A reader could also inspect Section 3.3 and the experiment scripts to confirm that Eqs. 6–8 define a real objective vector used by NSGA-II, MOPSO, or MODE rather than three disconnected metrics; if only accuracy is optimized, the method is single-objective in effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that fusing three fault-related feature sets—dynamic spectrum features, dynamic mutation features, and static text features—through multi-objective feature selection and fusion produces fault-localization models that are both more accurate and faster than single-feature or unoptimized deep learning approaches. In the paper's own terms, RNN-FL attains 221 Top-1 hits out of 434, versus DeepFL's 195, with an average accuracy improvement of 7.67%, AUC of 0.928, and lower MAR and MFR; MLP-FL also surpasses DeepFL. The authors claim this holds on Defects4J and generalizes to cross-project PROMISE tests with a 4.6% improvement over DeepFL, and that the multi-objective selection stage reduces processing time by 78.2% compared with single-objective methods.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the multi-objective algorithms are actually optimizing a clearly defined combination of accuracy, stability, and time; the paper gives separate formulas (Eqs. 6–8) but never states the combined objective vector, so if that unspecified objective does not exist, the feature selection stage and its claimed gains lose their stated mechanism.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If multi-objective feature fusion works as claimed, learning-based fault localizers can add static text features without losing dynamic information; the paper's RQ1 results show combined features beat each single-feature family in Top-1, Top-3, and Top-5 for both MLP and RNN.
  • If RNN-FL keeps its 7.67% average accuracy edge over DeepFL and its 78.2% time reduction, time-constrained fault localization pipelines should prefer fused, selected feature subsets over exhaustive feature engineering.
  • The PROMISE cross-project result of 4.6% over DeepFL implies that the selected features transfer beyond the projects they were tuned on, which matters for fault localization on unseen codebases.
  • The paper's ranking of single-feature methods, spectrum-based over mutation-based over text-based, gives a concrete ordering that future feature engineering can build on, while showing that text features still add value on top of dynamic ones.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the reported speedup suggests the real cost in deep fault localization is feature dimensionality, not classifier training; a fair test would compare DeepFL with the same fused input as MLP-FL and RNN-FL to isolate the effect of the feature-selection stage from the effect of changing the network.
  • Editorial inference: if the method is right, the same multi-objective feature-fusion wrapper could be applied to other deep localizers, such as graph-based or transformer-based models, since the selection step is decoupled from the network architecture.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's own validity section concedes that public fault datasets are limited in volume and quality, so the reported percentages should be read as bounded by the datasets used; larger and more diverse benchmarks could either confirm or shrink the gains.
  • Editorial inference: because the objective vector combining accuracy, stability, and time is never explicitly stated, a direct next step would be to define a concrete Pareto objective and report the actual fronts, which would make the multi-objective mechanism testable rather than inferential.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

6 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a software fault localization pipeline that combines multi-objective feature selection (NSGA-II, MOPSO, MODE) with feature fusion (voting and weighting) and two deep learning models (MLP-FL and RNN-FL, the latter based on GRU). The features are spectrum-based, mutation-based, and text-based. The models are evaluated on Defects4J (434 faults) and PROMISE, and the claims are that the pipeline reduces processing time by 78.2%, improves localization accuracy by 94.2% over traditional methods, outperforms DeepFL by 7.67% on Defects4J, and gains 4.6% on cross-project PROMISE tests.

Significance. If the results were valid, the paper would contribute a practical combination of multi-objective feature selection with deep learning for fault localization, and the use of public benchmarks (Defects4J, PROMISE) with established baselines (Tarantula, Dstar, DeepFL) is a strength. However, the load-bearing empirical claims are not verifiable from the reported tables: the Defects4J Top-1 totals in Table 11 disagree with the sum of the per-subset rows in Table 12, the 78.2% time reduction is not reproduced by any comparison in Table 9, and the stated 7.67% and 4.6% improvements do not follow from Tables 11 and 14. In addition, the central mechanism of the paper, the multi-objective objective vector in Section 3.3, is never explicitly defined. Because the central claims are unsupported by the paper's own data, the contribution cannot currently be assessed.

major comments (6)
  1. [Section 5.5, Tables 11 and 12] The Defects4J Top-1 counts are internally inconsistent. Summing the per-subset Top-1 rows in Table 12 gives 80, 89, 208, 226, and 234 for Tarantula, Dstar, DeepFL, MLP-FL, and RNN-FL, respectively, while Table 11 reports overall Top-1 counts of 74, 83, 195, 214, and 221. The differences (6, 6, 13, 12, 13) are too large to be rounding artifacts and no explanation is given (e.g., excluded faults or different dataset versions). Since the headline accuracy numbers, including the claimed advantage over DeepFL, are derived from these counts, the central empirical result is unverifiable from the reported data.
  2. [Section 3.3] The objective vector optimized by NSGA-II, MOPSO, and MODE is never defined. Equations (6), (7), and (8) define accuracy, stability, and time separately, but the paper does not state which combination of these quantities constitutes the multi-objective function, how the objectives are aggregated or compared in Pareto dominance, or how stability (a standard deviation across datasets or parameter settings, Eq. 7) is computed for a single feature subset on a single dataset. Without a well-defined objective vector, the feature selection stage is not actually specified as a multi-objective optimization, and the downstream accuracy and runtime results cannot be attributed to the proposed mechanism.
  3. [Equation (6) and Section 3.3] Equation (6) defines accuracy as Acc = N_correct / N_total, but the text immediately states that N_correct represents 'the number of true positives' and N_total represents 'the number of true negatives.' This is a mislabeling: if N_total were true negatives, the ratio would not be an accuracy; if N_total is intended to be the total number of statements or faults, the notation conflicts with the confusion matrix in Table 1. Because accuracy is both an optimization objective and an evaluation metric, this ambiguity undermines the quantitative interpretation of the experiments.
  4. [Abstract, Section 5.4, Table 9] The claimed 78.2% processing-time reduction is not reproducible from Table 9. For the MOPSO columns, the summed time over all six Defects4J subsets is 455 s for MLP and 555 s for RNN, while the corresponding baseline columns ('--') sum to 3299 s and 4158 s, giving reductions of about 86.2% and 86.7%. For MODE, the reductions are about 76.4% (MLP) and 77.3% (RNN). No row or average in the table yields 78.2%. The meaning of the baseline columns is also unclear, since the table header does not define what '--' represents beyond 'no multi-objective algorithm.' The abstract's central efficiency claim therefore does not follow from the presented data.
  5. [Abstract, Section 6, Tables 11 and 14] The claimed improvements of 7.67% over state-of-the-art deep learning on Defects4J and 4.6% on PROMISE are not derivable from the tables. In Table 11, RNN-FL's Top-1 of 221 versus DeepFL's 195 is a 13.3% relative improvement, while the MAR values differ by about 13.5%; no calculation using the reported metrics yields 7.67%. In Table 14, the best Top-1 improvement over DeepFL is 191 vs. 183 (about 4.4%) for MLP-FL, and the Top-5 improvement is 271 vs. 259 (about 4.6%), but the paper does not state which metric the 4.6% refers to. These percentages are presented in the abstract and conclusion as headline results, but they are not supported by the experimental tables.
  6. [Section 5.1 and Section 5.4] The paper does not specify whether feature selection and hyperparameter choices are nested inside the ten-fold cross-validation folds. The text states that the datasets were randomly divided into 10 parts (Section 5.1), but it does not say whether the multi-objective feature selection is performed on the training fold only or on the full dataset before splitting. If feature selection uses information from the test fold, the reported Top-N and AUC results would be optimistically biased. This is a standard methodological requirement for evaluating feature-selection pipelines, and the omission is consequential for the validity of all reported accuracy comparisons.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.2.2] The abstract refers to a 'gated recurrent network (GRN)' while Section 4.2.2 consistently uses 'GRU' (gated recurrent unit). The notation should be unified.
  2. [Equation (14)] In the sentence after Equation (14), the symbol 'g' is used for the complete hidden layer, but the equation and surrounding text use 'H'. This should be corrected to 'H'.
  3. [Section 5.3, Table 8] The text states that Top-1, Top-3, and Top-5 'represent the number of faults correctly predicted by the model,' but these metrics actually count faults whose faulty statement is ranked within the top N positions. The wording should be clarified.
  4. [Section 5.4, Table 9] The header of Table 9 uses '--' for the two rightmost columns without defining the baseline condition. Please define what these columns represent, e.g., MLP or RNN without multi-objective feature selection.
  5. [Equation (3)] The mutation probability in Equation (3) uses scalar fitness values f_i, f_max, and f_min, but the algorithms are described as multi-objective with vector-valued objectives. The paper should explain how a scalar fitness is derived from the objective vector for this equation.
  6. [Section 5.2, Tables 3-7] Hyperparameters for the three multi-objective algorithms and the two deep learning models are listed, but the paper gives no justification for these choices or sensitivity analysis. At minimum, a statement that these are standard settings would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the central claims are empirically benchmarked against external datasets and do not reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims are empirical comparisons on the Defects4J and PROMISE benchmarks against Tarantula, Dstar, and DeepFL. The proposed MLP-FL and RNN-FL models are specified by standard MLP and GRU equations, and the feature-fusion component is a heuristic multi-objective search; neither the model definitions nor the evaluation metrics are defined in terms of the reported results. The objective vector for the multi-objective optimizers is under-specified, and feature selection is not explicitly shown to be nested inside the cross-validation folds, but these are validity and reproducibility concerns rather than circularity: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no reported quantity is equal to an input by construction. The only self-citations (DStar and earlier neural-network fault localization work by co-author W. Eric Wong) are used as prior-art baselines or background, not as load-bearing justifications for the proposed method. The internal inconsistency between Table 11 and Table 12 Top-1 counts is a reporting defect, not a definitional reduction. Consequently, no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations or argument structure.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows that the central empirical claims depend on many hand-chosen hyperparameters and on several unstated assumptions, most critically the undefined objective vector of the optimizers and the comparability of baseline results. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • NSGA-II hyperparameters = population 100, iterations 200, crossover 0.6, mutation 0.1, distribution index 1
    Hand-chosen in Table 3; no sensitivity analysis is reported, and results depend on them.
  • MOPSO hyperparameters = population 100, iterations 100, archive 100, velocity params 1.5 and 2, velocity limits -1 and 1
    Hand-chosen in Table 4; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • MODE hyperparameters = population 100, iterations 100, crossover 0.5, scaling factor 0.2
    Hand-chosen in Table 5; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • MLP-FL hyperparameters = iterations 100, hidden neurons 128, learning rate 0.001, Adam
    Hand-chosen in Table 6; no search or ablation is reported.
  • RNN-FL hyperparameters = iterations 100, GRU layers 2, hidden neurons 64, learning rate 0.001, Adam
    Hand-chosen in Table 7; no search or ablation is reported.
  • Feature fusion weights = example weights 0.5, 1, 1.5; actual values not specified
    Section 3.5 gives illustrative weights only; the actual weighting scheme used in experiments is not defined.
  • Voting retention threshold = top three subsets in example; actual threshold not specified
    Section 3.4 illustrates voting with a top-three rule but does not state the rule used in the experiments.
  • Cross-validation random split = not reported
    Ten-fold CV is mentioned in Section 5.1, but the fold construction and random seed are not given, so results are not exactly reproducible.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The accuracy, stability, and time formulas in Section 3.3 constitute the objectives used by NSGA-II, MOPSO, and MODE.
    The paper never states the objective vector explicitly; this assumption is needed for the feature selection step to be a multi-objective optimization.
  • domain assumption Spectrum, mutation, and text features are complementary and their fusion improves fault localization.
    This is the motivating premise of the paper, stated in Sections 1 and 3, but no feature-interaction analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption PROMISE can provide statement-level fault localization ground truth.
    PROMISE is a software defect prediction dataset with module-level labels; the paper does not explain how it is converted to statement-level fault localization data.
  • domain assumption The reported Tarantula, Dstar, and DeepFL results are directly comparable to the authors' results.
    The paper does not state whether these baselines were rerun under the same preprocessing, feature pipeline, and cross-validation splits or taken from prior publications.
  • standard math Ten-fold cross-validation on randomly partitioned faults provides unbiased accuracy estimates.
    This is a standard statistical protocol, but it requires that feature selection and hyperparameter tuning be nested inside the folds; the paper does not confirm this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Software Fault Localization Based on Multi-objective Feature Fusion and Deep Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5DPLGMMV

@misc{pith2026241117101,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Software Fault Localization Based on Multi-objective Feature Fusion and Deep Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5DPLGMMV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17101}
}
read the original abstract

Software fault localization remains challenging due to limited feature diversity and low precision in traditional methods. This paper proposes a novel approach that integrates multi-objective optimization with deep learning models to improve both accuracy and efficiency in fault localization (FL). By framing feature selection as a multi-objective optimization problem (MOP), we extract and fuse three critical fault-related feature sets: spectrum-based, mutation-based, and text-based features, into a comprehensive feature fusion model. These features are then embedded within a deep learning architecture, comprising a multilayer perceptron (MLP) and gated recurrent network (GRN), which together enhance localization accuracy and generalizability. Experiments on the Defects4J benchmark dataset with 434 faults show that the proposed algorithm reduces processing time by 78.2% compared to single-objective methods. Additionally, our MLP and GRN models achieve a 94.2% improvement in localization accuracy compared to traditional FL methods, outperforming state-of-the-art deep learning-based FL method by 7.67%. Further validation using the PROMISE dataset demonstrates the generalizability of the proposed model, showing a 4.6% accuracy improvement in cross-project tests over state-of-the-art deep learning-based FL method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17101 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall Process of the Multi-Objective Feature Fusion Algorithm 3.1 Encoding Design In the feature selection stage of the software fault localization problem, three types of multi￾objective optimization algorithms are used, all of which adopt a binary-coded chromosome encoding scheme. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic Diagram of Fault Feature Chromosome Encoding 3.2 Operator Design To better adapt to the binary classification characteristics of the fault localization problem, this paper employs uniform crossover, where the gene exchange probability is the same for each locus, thereby increasing the diversity of offspring. Let two chromosomes be 𝑝1 and𝑝2 , with binary encodings of {𝑝11, 𝑝12, … , 𝑝1𝑛} and {𝑝21, 𝑝22, … , 𝑝… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overall Process of the Deep Learning Fault Localization Model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of Fault Localization Performance for Different Feature Extraction Methods in MLP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Time efficiency of Different Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms in MLP (left) and RNN (right) From [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Eric Wong, Ruizhi Gao, Yihao Li, Rui Abreu, and Franz Wotawa

    W. Eric Wong, Ruizhi Gao, Yihao Li, Rui Abreu, and Franz Wotawa. 2016. A survey on software fault localization. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 42, 8 (2016), 707–740

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Jones and Mary Jean Harrold

    James A. Jones and Mary Jean Harrold. 2005. Empirical evaluation of the tarantula automatic fault-localization technique. In Proceedings of the 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 273–282

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Eric Wong, Vidroha Debroy, Ruizhi Gao, and Yihao Li

    W. Eric Wong, Vidroha Debroy, Ruizhi Gao, and Yihao Li. 2013. The DStar method for effective software fault localization. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 63, 1 (2013), 290–308

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Yiling Lou, Ali Ghanbari, Xia Li, Lingming Zhang, Haotian Zhang, Dan Hao, and Lu Zhang. 2020. Can automated program repair refine fault localization? a unified debugging approach. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, 75–87

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Yiğit Küçük, Tim AD Henderson, and Andy Podgurski. 2021. Improving fault localization by integrating value and predicate based causal inference techniques. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 649–660. IEEE

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Yiling Lou, Qihao Zhu, Jinhao Dong, Xia Li, Zeyu Sun, Dan Hao, Lu Zhang, and Lingming Zhang. 2021. Boosting coverage-based fault localization via graph -based representation learning. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Enginee ring Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, 664–676

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Xia Li, Wei Li, Yuqun Zhang, and Lingming Zhang. 2019. Deepfl: Integrating multiple fault diagnosis dimensions for deep fault localization. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, 169–180

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Adam Slowik and Halina Kwasnicka. 2020. Evolutionary algorithms and their applications to engineering problems. Neural Computing and Applications 32 (2020), 12363–12379

    work page 2020

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Zilin Zeng, Hongjun Zhang, Rui Zhang, and Chengxiang Yin. 2015. A novel feature selection method considering feature interaction. Pattern Recognition 48, 8 (2015), 2656–2666

    2015

  2. [10]

    Gheyas and Leslie S

    Iffat A. Gheyas and Leslie S. Smith. 2010. Feature subset selection in large dimensionality domains. Pattern Recognition 43, 1 (2010), 5–13

    2010

  3. [11]

    Yan Xiaobo, Bin Liu, and Shihai Wang. 2021. A test restoration method based on genetic algorithm for effective fault localization in multiple-fault programs. Journal of Systems and Software 172 (2021), 110861

    2021

  4. [12]

    Danielle Azar and Joseph Vybihal. 2011. An ant colony optimization algorithm to improve software quality prediction models: Case of class stability. Information and Software Technology 53, 4 (2011), 388–393

    2011

  5. [13]

    Deepak Kumar Jain, Akshi Kumar, Saurabh Raj Sangwan, Gia Nhu Nguyen, and Prayag Tiwari. 2019. A particle swarm optimized learning model of fault classification in Web-Apps. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 18480–18489

    2019

  6. [14]

    Di Wu, Jiangjiang Zhang, ShaoJin Geng, Xingjuan Cai, and Guoyou Zhang. 2020. A multi -objective bat algorithm for software defect prediction. In Bio-inspired Computing: Theories and Applications: 14th International Conference, BIC-TA 2019, Zhengzhou, China, November 22 –25, 20...

    2020

  7. [15]

    Shenkai Gu, Ran Cheng, and Yaochu Jin. 2018. Feature selection for high -dimensional classification using a competitive swarm optimizer. Soft Computing 22 (2018), 811–822

    2018

  8. [16]

    Adline and Selvi Rajendran P

    Freeda R. Adline and Selvi Rajendran P. 2024. Test suite optimization under multi-objective constraints for software fault detection and localization: Hybrid optimization based model. Web Intelligence (2024), 1–16. IOS Press

    2024

  9. [17]

    Chu-Ti Lin, Wen -Yuan Chen, and Jutarporn Intasara. 2021. A framework for improving fault localization effectiveness based on fuzzy expert system. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 82577–82596

    2021

  10. [18]

    Jifeng Xuan and Martin Monperrus. 2014. Learning to combine multiple ranking metrics for fault localization. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, 191–200. IEEE

    2014

  11. [19]

    Amol Saxena, Roheet Bhatnagar, and Devesh Kumar Srivastava. 2022. Software Fault Localization: Techniques, Issues and Remedies. IAENG International Journal of Computer Science 49, 2 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Eric Wong and Yu Qi

    W. Eric Wong and Yu Qi. 2009. BP neural network -based effective fault localization. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 19, 4 (2009), 573–597

    2009

  13. [21]

    Eric Wong, Vidroha Debroy, Richard Golden, Xiaofeng Xu, and Bhavani Thuraisingham

    W. Eric Wong, Vidroha Debroy, Richard Golden, Xiaofeng Xu, and Bhavani Thuraisingham. 2011. Effective software fault localization using an RBF neural network. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 61, 1 (2011), 149–169

    2011

  14. [22]

    Lingfeng Fu, Yan Lei, Meng Yan, Ling Xu, Zhou Xu, and Xiaohong Zhang. 2023. MetaFL: Metamorphic fault localisation using weakly supervised deep learning. IET Software 17, 2 (2023), 137–153

    2023

  15. [23]

    Yi Li, Shaohua Wang, and Tien Nguyen. 2021. Fault localization with code coverage representation learning. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 661–673. IEEE

    2021

  16. [24]

    Amirabbas Majd, Mojtaba Vahidi-Asl, Alireza Khalilian, and Babak Bagheri. 2022. ConsilientSFL: using preferential voting system to generate combinatorial ranking metrics for spectrum -based fault localization. Applied Intelligence 52, 10 (2022), 11068–11088

    2022

  17. [25]

    René Just, Darioush Jalali, Michael D. Ernst. 2014. Defects4J: A database of existing faults to enable controlled testing studies for Java programs. In Proceedings of the 2014 international symposium on software testing and analysis. (2014): 437-440

    2014

  18. [26]

    Martin Shepperd, Qinbao Song, Zhongbin Sun, Carolyn Mair. 2013. Data quality: Some comments on the nasa software defect datasets. IEEE Transactions on software engineering. 39, 9 (2013): 1208-1215

    2013

  19. [27]

    Adekunle Akinjobi Ajibode, Ting Shu, and Zuohua Ding. 2020. Evolving suspiciousness metrics from hybrid data set for boosting a spectrum based fault localization. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 198451–198467.Gheyas, Iffat A., and Leslie S. Smith. "Feature subset selection in large dime...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.