Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2412.11289

Continuously Learning Bug Locations

Paulina Stevia Nouwou Mindom·Leuson Da Silva·Amin Nikanjam·Foutse Khomh
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Automatically locating buggy changesets associated with bug reports is crucial in the software development process. Deep Learning (DL)-based techniques show promising results by leveraging structural information from the code and learning links between changesets and bug reports. However, since source code associated with changesets evolves, the performance of such models tends to degrade over time due to concept drift. Aiming to address this challenge, in this paper, we evaluate the potential of using Continual Learning (CL) techniques in multiple sub-tasks setting for bug localization (each of which operates on either stationary or non-stationary data), comparing it against a bug localization technique that leverages the BERT model, a deep reinforcement learning-based technique that leverages the A2C algorithm, and a DL-based function-level interaction model for semantic bug localization. Additionally, we enhanced the CL techniques by using logistic regression to identify and integrate the most significant bug-inducing factors. Our empirical evaluation across seven widely used software projects shows that CL techniques perform better than DL-based techniques by up to 61% in terms of Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR), 44% in terms of Mean Average Precision (MAP), 83% in terms of top@1, 56% in terms of top@5, and 66% in terms of top@10 metrics in non-stationary setting. Further, we show that the CL techniques we studied are effective at localizing changesets relevant to a bug report while being able to mitigate catastrophic forgetting across the studied tasks and require up to 5x less computational effort during training. Our findings demonstrate the potential of adopting CL for bug localization in non-stationary settings, and we hope it helps to improve bug localization activities in Software Engineering using CL techniques.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Paulina Stevia Nouwou Mindom, Leuson Da Silva, Amin Nikanjam, Foutse Khomh. 2024-12-15. Continuously Learning Bug Locations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.11289

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗