Towards Unifying Localization and Explanation for Automated Debugging

Abstract

Abstract-Today, there exist powerful algorithms for automated debugging. Some of the debugging algorithms focus on fault localization while others try to explain the faulty behavior by providing, e.g., correct traces that are similar to a failure trace. SAT-based debugging locates faults, but does not explain the faulty behavior, e.g., some temporal properties of fault candidates are not fully explored.In this work, we study the resolution of SAT-based debugging with respect to its capability to locate faults and to explain faults. A strategy is presented that increases the diagnostic resolution of SAT-based debugging by combining fault localization and fault explanation in one algorithm. The experimental results confirm the strength of the approach and give directions for further research.

Model-based diagnosis versus error explanation

“…Thus, in our setting we cannot guarantee that MBD will compute a fault candidate which corresponds to the real fault. All assignments to the abnormal predicates are systematically blocked (line [14][15][16][17][18] and mapped to the corresponding statements in the program's source code (line 19) denoted by MapToSource, i.e., we collect a statement s as a fault candidate if there is an assignment u ∈ F which assigns an abnormal predicate a = 1 with stmt ab (a) = s.…”

“…There is only little work in comparing (and combining) MBD-based and explanation-based techniques [14], [15]. Köb and Wotawa [14] compare the reported results of an MBDbased and an explanation-based technique for a concurrent program which implements a simple locking protocol.…”

“…They concluded that an automatic debugging environment can profit from both techniques. Fey et al [15] describe a debugging approach for sequential circuits given as Hardware Description Language (HDL)-designs. They use a combination of an MBD-based and an explanation-based technique to improve the resolution of their approach.…”