Faster Configuration Performance Bug Testing with Neural Dual-level Prioritization
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As software systems become more complex and configurable, more performance problems tend to arise from the configuration designs. This has caused some configuration options to unexpectedly degrade performance which deviates from their original expectations designed by the developers. Such discrepancies, namely configuration performance bugs (CPBugs), are devastating and can be deeply hidden in the source code. Yet, efficiently testing CPBugs is difficult, not only due to the test oracle is hard to set, but also because the configuration measurement is expensive and there are simply too many possible configurations to test. As such, existing testing tools suffer from lengthy runtime or have been ineffective in detecting CPBugs when the budget is limited, compounded by inaccurate test oracle. In this paper, we seek to achieve significantly faster CPBug testing by neurally prioritizing the testing at both the configuration option and value range levels with automated oracle estimation. Our proposed tool, dubbed NDP, is a general framework that works with different heuristic generators. The idea is to leverage two neural language models: one to estimate the CPBug types that serve as the oracle while, more vitally, the other to infer the probabilities of an option being CPBug-related, based on which the options and the value ranges to be searched can be prioritized. Experiments on several widely-used systems of different versions reveal that NDP can, in general, better predict CPBug type in 87% cases and find more CPBugs with up to 88.88x testing efficiency speedup over the state-of-the-art tools.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Jan 2025.
Builds on
24 of 55 references.
References · 24
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2018Finding Faster Configurations using FLASHcited by 32
- 2023GPTuner: A Manual-Reading Database Tuning System via GPT-Guided Bayesian Optimizationcited by 29
- 2021Multi-Objectivizing Software Configuration Tuning (for a single performance concern)cited by 28
- 2023Do Performance Aspirations Matter for Guiding Software Configuration Tuning?cited by 21
- 2021MMO: Meta Multi-Objectivization for Software Configuration Tuningcited by 20
- 2016FEMOSAA: Feature Guided and Knee Driven Multi-Objective Optimization for Self-Adaptive Softwarecited by 18
- 2016An Uncertainty-Aware Approach to Optimal Configuration of Stream Processing Systemscited by 17
- 2016Self-Adaptive Trade-off Decision Making for Autoscaling Cloud-Based Servicescited by 17
- 2022The Weights can be Harmful: Pareto Search versus Weighted Search in Multi-Objective Search-Based Software Engineeringcited by 17
- 2024Predicting Configuration Performance in Multiple Environments with Sequential Meta-learningcited by 17
- 2022Lifelong Dynamic Optimization for Self-Adaptive Systems: Fact or Fiction?cited by 16
12 more
- 2023Predicting Software Performance with Divide-and-Learncited by 16
- 2024Adapting Multi-objectivized Software Configuration Tuningcited by 13
- 2022Planning Landscape Analysis for Self-Adaptive Systemscited by 12
- 2025Distilled Lifelong Self-Adaptation for Configurable Systemscited by 12
- 2025Accuracy Can Lie: On the Impact of Surrogate Model in Configuration Tuningcited by 10
- 2020DATESSO: Self-Adapting Service Composition with Debt-Aware Two Levels Constraint Reasoningcited by 9
- 2024Deep Configuration Performance Learning: A Systematic Survey and Taxonomycited by 8
- 2021The Interaction between Inputs and Configurations fed to Software Systems: an Empirical Studycited by 6
- 2022On Debugging the Performance of Configurable Software Systems: Developer Needs and Tailored Tool Supportcited by 6
- 2024Dividable Configuration Performance Learningcited by 4
- 2016A Comparison of 10 Sampling Algorithms for Configurable Systemscited by 3
- 2019Redundant Loads: A Software Inefficiency Indicatorcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 6; 2026: 3.
9 papers.
- 2025Dually Hierarchical Drift Adaptation for Online Configuration Performance Learningcited by 8
- 2026Revealing Domain-Spatiality Patterns for Configuration Tuning: Domain Knowledge Meets Fitness Landscapescited by 5
- 2025Rethinking Autonomy: Preventing Failures in AI-Driven Software Engineeringcited by 4
- 2025Learning Software Bug Reports: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 3
- 2025CoTune: Co-evolutionary Configuration Tuningcited by 2
- 2025Light over Heavy: Automated Performance Requirements Quantification with Linguistic Inducementcited by 2
- 2025Evaluating Useful Surrogate Models for Configuration Tuning Beyond Accuracy: A Fitness Landscape Analysis Perspectivecited by 1
- 2026Conjecture and Inquiry: Quantifying Software Performance Requirements via Interactive Retrieval-Augmented Preference Elicitationcited by 1
- 2026Diagnose Before You Compress: Prediction-Independent Bottleneck Witness Refinement for LLM Serving Tracescited by 1
- 2026Diagnose Before You Compress: Prediction-Independent Bottleneck Witness Refinement for LLM Serving Traces1 Aug 2026
- 2026Conjecture and Inquiry: Quantifying Software Performance Requirements via Interactive Retrieval-Augmented Preference Elicitation23 Apr 2026
- 2026Revealing Domain-Spatiality Patterns for Configuration Tuning: Domain Knowledge Meets Fitness Landscapes20 Mar 2026
- 2025Light over Heavy: Automated Performance Requirements Quantification with Linguistic Inducement5 Nov 2025
- 2025CoTune: Co-evolutionary Configuration Tuning29 Sep 2025
- 2025Evaluating Useful Surrogate Models for Configuration Tuning Beyond Accuracy: A Fitness Landscape Analysis Perspective26 Sep 2025
- 2025Rethinking Autonomy: Preventing Failures in AI-Driven Software Engineering15 Aug 2025
- 2025Dually Hierarchical Drift Adaptation for Online Configuration Performance Learning11 Jul 2025
- 2025Learning Software Bug Reports: A Systematic Literature Review6 Jul 2025