Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2502.12922

Identifying Bug Inducing Commits by Combining Fault Localisation and Code Change Histories

Abstract

A Bug Inducing Commit (BIC) is a code change that introduces a bug into the codebase. Although the abnormal or unexpected behavior caused by the bug may not manifest immediately, it will eventually lead to program failures further down the line. When such a program failure is observed, identifying the relevant BIC can aid in the bug resolution process, because knowing the original intent and context behind the code change, as well as having a link to the author of that change, can facilitate bug triaging and debugging. However, existing BIC identification techniques have limitations. Bisection can be computationally expensive because it requires executing failing tests against previous versions of the codebase. Other techniques rely on the availability of specific post hoc artifacts, such as bug reports or bug fixes. In this paper, we propose a technique called Fonte that aims to identify the BIC with a core concept that a commit is more likely to be a BIC if it has more recently modified code elements that are highly suspicious of containing the bug. To realise this idea, Fonte leverages two fundamental relationships in software: the failure-to-code relationship, which can be quantified through fault localisation techniques, and the code-to-commit relationship, which can be obtained from version control systems. Our empirical evaluation using 206 real-world BICs from open-source Java projects shows that Fonte significantly outperforms state-of-the-art BIC identification techniques, achieving up to 45.8% higher MRR. We also report that the ranking scores produced by Fonte can be used to perform weighted bisection. Finally, we apply Fonte to a large-scale industry project with over 10M lines of code, and show that it can rank the actual BIC within the top five commits for 87% of the studied real batch-testing failures, and save the BIC inspection cost by 32% on average.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gabin An, Jinsu Choi, Jingun Hong, Naryeong Kim, Shin Yoo. 2025-02-19. Identifying Bug Inducing Commits by Combining Fault Localisation and Code Change Histories. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12922

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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