Downloads

https://doi.org/10.62836/jcmea.v6i1.0004
Gong, H. (2026). Hierarchical Bayesian Defect Localization under Test and Inspection Constraints. Journal of Computational Methods in Engineering Applications, 6(1), 0004. https://doi.org/10.62836/jcmea.v6i1.0004
Volume 6, Issue 1, 2026

Hierarchical Bayesian Defect Localization under Test and Inspection Constraints

Defect localization is difficult to transfer across projects because test coverage, defect history, and issue-report availability induce different ranking uncertainty. This paper introduces TDL-Prioritize, a hierarchical empirical-Bayes localization model studied on Defects4J. The case study downloads active bug metadata from the official Defects4J repository and obtains 854 active bugs across 17 Java projects. Project priors shrink sparse suspiciousness estimates, a CVaR term protects against hard-to-localize tails, and a capacity price determines how many files can be inspected. The largest project slice is Closure with 174 active bugs, while external issue-report coverage is 97.9% across the loaded metadata. Posterior ridgelines, credible intervals, and rank-migration diagnostics are used instead of a single aggregate score. The derivation links spectrum evidence, posterior variance, robust risk, and the final ranking gate in a form that can be audited by testing teams.

software engineering Defects4J fault localization test-driven repair empirical Bayes

References

  1. Just R, Jalali D, Ernst MD. 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 (ISSTA), San Jose, CA, USA, 21–25 July 2014; pp. 437–440. https://doi.org/10.1145/2610384.2628055.
  2. Pressman RS, Maxim BR. Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
  3. Sommerville I. Software Engineering; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2016.
  4. Boehm BW. Software Engineering Economics; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1981.
  5. Dijkstra EW. The Humble Programmer. Communications of the ACM 1972; 15: 859–866.
  6. Parnas DL. On the Criteria to Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules. Communications of the ACM 1972; 15: 1053–1058.
  7. Brooks FP. No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering. Computer 1987; 20(4): 10–19.
  8. Fowler M. Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 2018.
  9. Humble J, Farley D. Continuous Delivery; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 2010.
  10. Kim G, Humble J, Debois P, et al. The DevOps Handbook; IT Revolution Press: Portland, OR, USA, 2016.
  11. Rockafellar RT, Uryasev S. Optimization of Conditional Value-at-Risk. The Journal of Risk 2000; 2(3): 21–41. https://doi.org/10.21314/jor.2000.038.
  12. Ben-Tal A, El Ghaoui L, Nemirovski A. Robust Optimization; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400831050.
  13. Mockus A, Fielding RT, Herbsleb JD. Two Case Studies of Open Source Software Development. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 2002; 11(3): 309–346. https://doi.org/10.1145/567793.567795.
  14. Nagappan N, Ball T, Zeller A. Mining Metrics to Predict Component Failures. In Proceedings of the ICSE06: International Conference on Software Engineering, Shanghai, China, 20–28 May 2006; pp. 452–461. https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134349.
  15. Zimmermann T, Nagappan N, Gall H, et al. Cross-Project Defect Prediction: A Large Scale Experiment on Data vs. Domain vs. Process. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 7th joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on The Foundations of Software Engineering, Amsterdam The Netherlands, 24–28 August 2009; pp. 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1145/1595696.1595713.
  16. Menzies T, Greenwald J, Frank A. Data Mining Static Code Attributes to Learn Defect Predictors. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 2007; 33(1): 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2007.256941.
  17. Hindle A, Barr ET, Su Z, et al. On the Naturalness of Software. In Proceedings of the 2012 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2012), Zurich, Switzerland, 2–9 June 2012; pp. 837–847. https://doi.org/10.1109/icse.2012.6227135.
  18. Allamanis M, Barr ET, Dévanbu P, et al. A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness. ACM Computing Surveys 2018; 51(4): 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3212695.
  19. Ray B, Hellendoorn V, Godhane S, et al. On the "Naturalness" of Buggy Code. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, Austin, TX, USA, 14–22 May 2016: pp. 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884848.
  20. Le Goues C, Pradel M, Roychoudhury A. Automated Program Repair. Communications of the ACM 2019; 62(12): 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1145/3318162.
  21. Le Goues C, Nguyen T, Forrest S, et al. GenProg: A Generic Method for Automatic Software Repair. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 2012; 38(1): 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2011.104.
  22. Gazzola L, Micucci D, Mariani L. Automatic Software Repair: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 2019; 45(1): 34–67. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2017.2755013.
  23. Bacchelli A, Bird C. Expectations, Outcomes, and Challenges of Modern Code Review. In Proceedings of the 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), San Francisco, CA, USA, 18–26 May 2013; pp. 712–721. https://doi.org/10.1109/icse.2013.6606617.
  24. Rigby PC, Bird C. Convergent Contemporary Software Peer Review Practices. In Proceedings of the ESEC/FSE'13: Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, Saint Petersburg, Russia, 18–26 August 2013; pp. 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1145/2491411.2491444.
  25. McIntosh S, Kamei Y, Adams B, et al. An Empirical Study of the Impact of Modern Code Review Practices on Software Quality. Empirical Software Engineering 2016; 21(5): 2146–2189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-015-9381-9.
  26. Laukkanen E, Itkonen J, Lassenius C. Problems, Causes and Solutions when Adopting Continuous Delivery—A Systematic Literature Review. Information and Software Technology 2017; 82: 55–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2016.10.001.
  27. Vasilescu B, Yu Y, Wang H, et al. Quality and Productivity Outcomes Relating to Continuous Integration in GitHub. In Proceedings of the ESEC/FSE'15: Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, Bergamo, Italy, 30 August–4 September 2015; pp. 805–816. https://doi.org/10.1145/2786805.2786850.
  28. Hilton M, Tunnell T, Huang K, et al. Usage, Costs, and Benefits of Continuous Integration in Open-Source Projects. In Proceedings of the ASE'16: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Singapore, 3–7 September 2016; pp. 426–437. https://doi.org/10.1145/2970276.2970358.
  29. Zeller A. Why Programs Fail: A Guide to Systematic Debugging; Morgan Kaufmann: Burlington, MA, USA, 2009.
  30. Jones JA, Harrold MJ. Empirical Evaluation of the Tarantula Automatic Fault-Localization Technique. In Proceedings of the ASE05: International Conference on Automated Software Engineering 2005, Long Beach, CA, USA, 7–11 November 2005; pp. 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1145/1101908.1101949.
  31. Abadi M. TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systems. In Proceedings of the 12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, Savannah, GA, USA, 2–4 November 2016.
  32. Dean J, Ghemawat S. MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters. In Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, San Francisco, CA, USA, 6–8 December 2004.
  33. Hunt PG, Konar M, Junqueira F, et al. ZooKeeper: Wait-Free Coordination for Internet-Scale Systems. In Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference 2010, Boston, MA, USA, 23–25 June 2010. Available online: http://deptinfo.unice.fr/twiki/pub/Minfo/DistributedAlgo/ZooKeeper.pdf (accessed on 26 October 2026).
  34. Bailis P, Ghodsi A. Eventual Consistency Today. Communications of the ACM 2013; 56(5): 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1145/2447976.2447992.
  35. Lamport L. Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System. Communications of the ACM 1978; 21(7): 558–565. https://doi.org/10.1145/359545.359563.
  36. Li J, Culver TB, Burgis CR, et al. Validating Nitrogen Removal Models with Field Bioretention Data. Journal of Environmental Engineering 2024; 150(8): 04024037. https://doi.org/10.1061/joeedu.eeeng-7556.
  37. Li J, Culver TB, Persaud PP, et al. Developing Nitrogen Removal Models for Stormwater Bioretention Systems. Water Research 2023; 243: 120381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2023.120381.
  38. Li J. Nitrogen Removal Models for Stormwater Bioretention Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA, 2023.
  39. Li J, Culver TB. Review of Process-Based Nitrogen Model for Agricultural Fields with Implications for Nitrogen Simulations in Stormwater BMPs. Environmental Modelling & Software 2022; 151: 105363.
  40. Deng X, Oda S, Kawano Y. Graphene-Based Midinfrared Photodetector with Bull’s Eye Plasmonic Antenna. Optical Engineering 2023; 62(09): 097102. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.oe.62.9.097102.
  41. Deng X, Li L, Enomoto M, et al. Continuously Frequency-Tuneable Plasmonic Structures for Terahertz Bio-Sensing and Spectroscopy. Scientific Reports 2019; 9(1): 3498. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39015-6.
  42. Deng X, Kawano Y. Surface Plasmon Polariton Graphene Midinfrared Photodetector with Multifrequency Resonance. Journal of Nanophotonics 2018; 12(02): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jnp.12.026017.
  43. Deng X, Simanullang M, Kawano Y. Ge-Core/a-Si-Shell Nanowire-Based Field-Effect Transistor for Sensitive Terahertz Detection. Photonics 2018; 5(2): 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics5020013.
  44. Yan H. Real-Time 3D Model Reconstruction through Energy-Efficient Edge Computing. Optimizations in Applied Machine Learning 2022; 2(1). https://doi.org/10.71070/oaml.v2i1.48.
  45. Yan H, Shao D. Enhancing Transformer Training Efficiency with Dynamic Dropout. arXiv 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2411.03236.
  46. Luo Z, Yan H, Pan X. Optimizing Transformer Models for Resource-Constrained Environments: A Study on Model Compression Techniques. Journal of Computational Methods in Engineering Applications 2023; 3(1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.62836/jcmea.v3i1.030107.
  47. Yan H, Shao D. Multimodal Medical Image Analysis: Integrating LLM and RAG Deep Learning Strategies. Journal of Advances in Information Technology 2025; 16(4): 568–581. https://doi.org/10.12720/jait.16.4.568-581.
  48. Lu Y, Shao D, Ni X, et al. Emotion-Style Dual Prediction: A Multi-Task Deep Learning Approach for Artistic Images. Cluster Computing 2026; 29(1): 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-025-05858-0.
  49. Dai Y. Medical Biopharmaceutical Image Anomaly Detection under Retinex State Space Duality and Frequency Consensus-Driven Transformer. Journal of Computational Methods in Engineering Applications 2026; 6(1): 0001.
  50. Dai Y. Deep Learning-Based Medical Image Segmentation for Early Cancer Detection. Optimizations in Applied Machine Learning 2025; 5(1).
  51. Dai Y. MobileMamba-HC: Medical Image Disease Detection in Healthcare Integrating Frequency Adaptive Dilated Convolution and Spatial-Channel Synergistic Attention. Innovations in Applied Engineering and Technology 2026; 5(1): 0002.
  52. Dai Y, Wei L, Yu C. Graph Neural Network-Based Drug-Target Interaction Prediction for Precision Medicine. Optimizations in Applied Machine Learning 2025; 5(1).
  53. Zhang Y, Needleman A. On the Identification of Power-Law Creep Parameters from Conical Indentation. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 2021; 477(2252): 20210233.
  54. Zhang Y, Needleman A. Characterization of Plastically Compressible Solids via Spherical Indentation. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 2021; 148: 104283.
  55. Shapley LS. A Value for N-Person Games. In Contributions to the Theory of Games (AM-28), Volume II; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1953; pp. 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400881970-018.

Supporting Agencies

  1. Funding: This research received no external funding.