Spectrum-based Software Fault Localization: A Survey of Techniques, Advances, and Challenges
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Despite being one of the most basic tasks in software development, debugging is still performed in a mostly manual way, leading to high cost and low performance. To address this problem, researchers have studied promising approaches, such as Spectrum-based Fault Localization (SFL) techniques, which pinpoint program elements more likely to contain faults. This survey discusses the state-of-the-art of SFL, including the different techniques that have been proposed, the type and number of faults they address, the types of spectra they use, the programs they utilize in their validation, the testing data that support them, and their use at industrial settings. Notwithstanding the advances, there are still challenges for the industry to adopt these techniques, which we analyze in this paper. SFL techniques should propose new ways to generate reduced sets of suspicious entities, combine different spectra to fine-tune the fault localization ability, use strategies to collect fine-grained coverage levels from suspicious coarser levels for balancing execution costs and output precision, and propose new techniques to cope with multiple-fault programs. Moreover, additional user studies are needed to understand better how SFL techniques can be used in practice. We conclude by presenting a concept map about topics and challenges for future research in SFL.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 15 Jul 2016.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 4; 2026: 4.
9 papers.
- 2025Who is Introducing the Failure? Automatically Attributing Failures of Multi-Agent Systems via Spectrum Analysiscited by 33
- 2025SweRank: Software Issue Localization with Code Rankingcited by 20
- 2024Graph Neural Networks for Vulnerability Detection: A Counterfactual Explanationcited by 12
- 2025Localized Calibrated Uncertainty in Code Language Modelscited by 3
- 2025Fault Localization via Fine-tuning Large Language Models with Mutation Generated Stack Tracescited by 1
- 2026SemLoc: Structured Grounding of Free-Form LLM Reasoning for Fault Localizationcited by 0
- 2026LLM-Based Automated Diagnosis Of Integration Test Failures At Googlecited by 0
- 2026Eta Given Delta: Defining LLM Tool Efficiency With Marginal Tool Utilitycited by 0
- 2026From Codebase to Culprit (C2C): Reducing the Search Space for Bugs with Semantic Retrieval and Hierarchical Reinforcement Learningcited by 0
- 2026From Codebase to Culprit (C2C): Reducing the Search Space for Bugs with Semantic Retrieval and Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning29 Sep 2026
- 2026Eta Given Delta: Defining LLM Tool Efficiency With Marginal Tool Utility7 May 2026
- 2026LLM-Based Automated Diagnosis Of Integration Test Failures At Google13 Apr 2026
- 2026SemLoc: Structured Grounding of Free-Form LLM Reasoning for Fault Localization31 Mar 2026
- 2025Localized Calibrated Uncertainty in Code Language Models31 Dec 2025
- 2025Who is Introducing the Failure? Automatically Attributing Failures of Multi-Agent Systems via Spectrum Analysis17 Sep 2025
- 2025SweRank: Software Issue Localization with Code Ranking7 May 2025
- 2025Fault Localization via Fine-tuning Large Language Models with Mutation Generated Stack Traces29 Jan 2025
- 2024Graph Neural Networks for Vulnerability Detection: A Counterfactual Explanation24 Apr 2024