• Save
"Crash Graphs: An Aggregated View of Multiple Crashes to Improve Crash Triage" by Sunghun Kim, Thomas Zimmermann and Nachiappan Nagappan.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

"Crash Graphs: An Aggregated View of Multiple Crashes to Improve Crash Triage" by Sunghun Kim, Thomas Zimmermann and Nachiappan Nagappan.

on

  • 1,098 views

"Crash Graphs: An Aggregated View of Multiple Crashes to Improve Crash Triage" by Sunghun Kim, Thomas Zimmermann and Nachiappan Nagappan.

"Crash Graphs: An Aggregated View of Multiple Crashes to Improve Crash Triage" by Sunghun Kim, Thomas Zimmermann and Nachiappan Nagappan.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,098
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
1,098
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    "Crash Graphs: An Aggregated View of Multiple Crashes to Improve Crash Triage" by Sunghun Kim, Thomas Zimmermann and Nachiappan Nagappan. "Crash Graphs: An Aggregated View of Multiple Crashes to Improve Crash Triage" by Sunghun Kim, Thomas Zimmermann and Nachiappan Nagappan. Presentation Transcript

    • Crash Graphs: An aggregated view ofmultiple crashes to improve crash triage Sung Kim (HKUST) Tom Zimmermann and Nachi Nagappan (MSR)
    • Windows Error Reporting (WER) System
    • Windows Error Reporting (WER) System
    • Windows Error Reporting (WER) Systemcrashes
    • Windows Error Reporting (WER) SystemIdentifyingCrash causes
    • Windows Error Reporting (WER) Systembucketing
    • Windows Error Reporting (WER) System
    • Windows Error Reporting (WER) System Bug Bug Bug report report report 1 2 3Reportingbugs
    • Crash GraphAggregation of multiple crashes
    • Crash GraphTrace 1 A B C DTrace 2 A E F G DTrace 3 C D G D
    • Crash Graph ATrace 1 A B C D BTrace 2 A E F G DTrace 3 C D G D C D
    • Crash Graph A ETrace 1 A B C D BTrace 2 A E F G DTrace 3 C D G D F C G D
    • Crash Graph A ETrace 1 A B C D BTrace 2 A E F G DTrace 3 C D G D F C G D
    • Crash Graph A ETrace 1 A B C D BTrace 2 A E F G DTrace 3 C D G D F C G D
    • Crash Graph Example
    • Research Questions}  RQ1: Is it useful for debugging?}  RQ2: Can this identify duplicated bugs (second buckets)}  RQ3: Can this hold crash properties: can we predict fixable crashes?
    • RQ1: Useful for Debugging?
    • Evaluation}  Find fixed bugs reported by Watson(autobug)}  Draw crash graphs for the bugs}  Send the graphs to the corresponding fixers}  Ask fixers for comments
    • Developer feedback}  “… the graph would be showing me that a single cab could not…”}  “Your graph looks helpful…”}  “Usually developers can guess 50-80% the crash causes by reading call traces. This graph can help developers to see all traces together”
    • RQ2: Detecting Duplicated Bugs Bug Bug Bug report report report 1 2 3Reportingbugs
    • RQ2: Detecting Duplicated Bugs Duplicated! Bug Bug Bug Fixed report report report 1 2 3Reportingbugs Second bucket
    • Sub-graph similarity ⊇
    • Sub-graph similarity !"#(​%↓"( ,  ​%↓*#+,, )=​|​-↓"(   ∩​  -↓*#+,, |/|​-↓*#+,, |  , where E is the set of edges in G and |​-↓*#+,, |≤|​-↓"( |. ⊇
    • Evaluation Bug ids Dup? Bug 1 Bug 2 Bug 1 Bug 1 Bug 3 Duplicated! Bug 2 Bug 1 Bug 4 Bug 1 Bug 5 Bug 3 Bug 2 Bug 3 Bug 2 Bug 4 Bug 4 Duplicated! Bug 2 Bug 5 Bug 5 Bug 3 Bug 4 Bug 3 Bug 5From bug reports Bug 4 Bug 5
    • Evaluation Bug ids Dup? Bug 1 Bug 2 Bug 1 Bug 3 Bug 1 Bug 4 Bug 1 Bug 5 Bug 2 Bug 3 Bug 2 Bug 4 Bug 2 Bug 5 Bug 3 Bug 4 Bug 3 Bug 5 Bug 4 Bug 5
    • Similarity Computation Bug ids Dup? Similarity Dup? threshold=0.9 Bug 1 Bug 2 0.85 Bug 1 Bug 3 0.95 Bug 1 Bug 4 0.8 Bug 1 Bug 5 0.7 Bug 2 Bug 3 0.8 Bug 2 Bug 4 0.8 Bug 2 Bug 5 0.1 Bug 3 Bug 4 0.4 Bug 3 Bug 5 0.96 Bug 4 Bug 5 0.2 Precision= 50%, recall = 50%
    • Subject (WinOS Bugs) Name Value # of bug reports X # of duplicated bugs 13.3% # of total bug pair (X*X-1/2) # of duplicated bug pair 0.32% # of non-duplicated bug Remaining
    • Dup-detection Results Similarity Precision Recall threshold 1 *70.3 58.8 0.99 71.5 62.4 0.98 71.0 63.6 0.97 68.4 64.2 0.96 65.0 64.2 0.95 61.6 64.2
    • Why Crash Graph Works?}  Uses all traces to compare trace1
    • Why Crash Graph Works?}  Uses all traces to compare trace1
    • Why Crash Graph Works?}  Uses all traces to compare 90% trace 2 trace1
    • Why Crash Graph Works?}  Uses all traces to compare trace1 trace 2
    • Why Crash Graph Works?}  Uses all traces to compare 80% trace 3 trace1 trace 2
    • Why Crash Graph Works?}  Uses all traces to compare trace1 trace 3 trace 2
    • Why Crash Graph Works?}  Uses all traces to compare trace1 trace 3 90% trace 2
    • Why Crash Graph Works?}  Partial tracesBucket 1 Trace 1 A B C D Trace 2 D E F G HBucket 2 Trace 3 C D E F
    • RQ3: Predicting Fixable Crashes}  Not all crashes will be fixed}  There are too many crashes}  Can we prioritize developers’ effort? }  If we know which crashes are likely to be fixed }  Developers can focus on these first
    • Extracting Features Features values Node # 7 Edge # 5 Max-in 4 Max-out 2 Crash graph
    • Extracting Features Bug id Features Fixed? 1 0 1 3 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 5 1 0 1 Machine1 1 2 1 3 1 0 learner Fixable!
    • Results Subjects/Features Precision Recall F-measureWindows 7 Exchange14 Crash graph 79.5 69.6 74.5 Bug meta data 69.9 66.1 68.6 Crash graph 72.1 60.3 65 All features 71.8 61.2 65.4Subjects: Several hundred bugs from Windows 7 and a few thousand fromExchange 14 bugs
    • Results Subjects/Features Precision Recall F-measure Bug meta data 80 57.2 66.3Windows 7 Exchange14 Crash graph 79.5 69.6 74.5 All features 80 70.6 74.7 Bug meta data 69.9 66.1 68.6 Crash graph 72.1 60.3 65 All features 71.8 61.2 65.4Subjects: Several hundred bugs from Windows 7 and a few thousand fromExchange 14 bugs
    • Evaluation Subjects/Features Precision Recall F-measure Bug meta data 80 57.2 66.3Windows 7 Exchange14 Crash graph 79.5 69.6 74.5 All features 80 70.6 74.7 Bug meta data 69.9 66.1 68.6 Crash graph 72.1 60.3 65 All features 71.8 61.2 65.4Subjects: Several hundred bugs from Windows 7 and a few thousand fromExchange 14 bugs
    • Summary: Crash Graph is Useful}  Debugging}  Identifying duplicated bugs (second buckets)}  Predicting fixable crashes
    • Future Work}  Interactive Crash Graphs}  Other trace clustering algorithms Crash topic analysis } }  Applying crash graphs for other problems }  One-hit buckets