Abstract:Mutation‐based fault localization (MBFL) can automatically locate bugs by mutants, which is lack of exploration. In this paper, we extend MBFL by transforming 25 SBFL formulae and proposing a novel MBFL formula, BLMu, with differentiated mutant weights. Large‐scale experiments on Defects4J show our methods outperform existing MBFL and SBFL approaches. Fault localization (FL) aims to automatically find the location of bugs in a software program. In the family of FL approaches, spectrum‐based fault localization (SBFL) is the most widely used and has been extensively studied, which computes the suspicious scores of a code element to be buggy via test coverage information. Mutation‐based fault localization (MBFL) further analyses the relationship between mutants and test results. Although MBFL involves more information, it also faces the following limitations. (1) To precisely evaluate suspicious sources, SBFL approaches proposed dozens of formulae based on coverage, while only a few of them have been adopted by MBFL. (2) The current MBFL approaches are based on the assumption that the capability in localizing bugs of each mutant is the same, so they assign the same weight to the mutants that change the test outputs and consider the mutant from the same code element equivalent. In this paper, we intend to enrich the MBFL family by the following two approaches. First, we collect 25 typical SBFL formulae and transform them into MBFL versions. Second, we propose new assumptions that the mutants should have different weights in computing suspicious sources and propose BLMu, a novel MBFL approach that treats mutants differently. We also propose novel metrics for MBFL by considering the high cost of mutation analysis. We perform large‐scale experiments by evaluating all the MBFL approaches against 395 real‐world Java bugs of the Defects4J benchmark. Our evaluation results reveal that BLMu demonstrates a substantial improvement over both MUSE and Metallaxis, the most popular MBFL approaches, at both the statement level and the method level. Specifically, in terms of Top‐1, BLMu improves by 106% at the statement level and 69% at the method level. When compared with other types of FL approaches, MBFL outperforms typical SBFL approaches while still far behind the state‐of‐the‐art learning‐based FL approaches.

MetaMFL: Metamorphic Multiple Fault Localization Without Test Oracles

Spectrum-Based Fault Localization: Testing Oracles Are No Longer Mandatory

Metamorphic Slice: an Application in Spectrum-Based Fault Localization.

Backward-Slice-Based Statistical Fault Localization without Test Oracles

MCFL: Improving Fault Localization by Differentiating Missing Code and Other Faults

MetaFL: Metamorphic Fault Localisation Using Weakly Supervised Deep Learning

CLPS-MFL: Using Concept Lattice of Program Spectrum for Effective Multi-fault Localization

Test Oracle Prediction for Mutation Based Fault Localization

Learning Test-Mutant Relationship for Accurate Fault Localisation

UTDCS-0710 Spectrum-Based Fault Localization without Test Oracles

A Systematic Exploration of Mutation‐Based Fault Localization Formulae

An effective fault localization approach based on PageRank and mutation analysis

GMBFL: Optimizing Mutation-Based Fault Localization Via Graph Representation

Integration of Metamorphic Testing with Program Repair Methods Based on Adaptive Search Strategies and Program Equivalence.

Mulr4FL: Effective Fault Localization of Evolution Software Based on Multivariate Logistic Regression Model

Fault Localization and Test Oracle Generation Based on the Mutual Pattern of Discrete Path Variables

HMER: A Hybrid Mutation Execution Reduction approach for Mutation-based Fault Localization

Integrating Neural Mutation into Mutation-Based Fault Localization: A Hybrid Approach

FATOC: Bug Isolation Based Multi-Fault Localization by Using OPTICS Clustering

An Empirical Study on Higher-Order Mutation-Based Fault Localization

Enhancing Fault Localization Through Ordered Code Analysis with LLM Agents and Self-Reflection