# Incremental Formula-Based Fix Localization
## 5 Results of the Experiments
### Result of RQ4: Real Software Bugs
Column _\"Trace size\"_ shows the number line of code that is executed in the error trace of the bug. The _\"#MFC_ columns show the number of minimal angelic fix candidates that each technique AgxFaults, FS, and FI produced for a failing test case. The _\"#Susp. Lines\"_ columns show the total number of lines that each techniques reported as suspicious. The _\"#Exam lines\"_ columns show the number of lines of code that the developer needs to examined to identify the first fault. Empty value in the _\"#Exam lines\"_ means that the developer would not find any faulty statement in the list of suspicious statements produced by the tool, i.e., the tool cannot report any actual faulty statement in the buggy program. As the result shows, in total 22 bugs, AgxFaults outperforms FS and FI in terms of fault localization effectiveness since, as shown in Table 5, in a total of 22 bugs in this study, AgxFaults successfully reported the actual faulty line in 19 bugs, while FS succeeded in 9 bugs, and FI succeeded in 5 bugs. We compared the efficiency of AgxFaults on the real bugs benchmark with only FS and FI techniques. Table 6 shows the comparison results. As shown in the table, the time for solving formulas in AgxFaults is about 1.7 times longer than in FS, and about 95 times longer than FI approaches. As shown in the table, the total running time of AgxFaults is about 1.7 times longer than in FS, and about 5 times longer than FI approaches. The formula solving time accounts for about 43% of the total running time of AgxFault, while that of FS is 41%, and FI is The computation overhead for the formula solving activity account for about 43% of total computation cost of AgxFaults and total running time. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multirow{2}{*}{**Trace Size**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\#MFC**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\#Susp. Lines**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\#Exam Lines**} \\
**Bug ID** & & **Agx** & **FS** & **FI** & **Agx** & **FS** & **FI** & **Agx** & **FS** & **FI** \\ \hline Chart5 & 928 & 6 & 14 & 7 & 7 & 14 & 6 & 3 & 9 & 1 \\ Chart7 & 843 & 4 & 14 & 0 & 4 & 14 & 0 & 4 & 12 & - \\ Chart18 & 806 & 3 & 0 & 3 & 3 & 0 & 3 & 3 & - & - \\ Chart22 & 754 & 1 & 11 & 4 & 1 & 11 & 4 & - & 7 & - \\ Codec16 & 54 & 6 & 9 & 2 & 3 & 5 & 2 & 5 & - & - \\ Codec18 & 207 & 48 & 6 & 6 & 12 & 6 & 6 & 12 & - & - \\ Comp24 & 5836 & 31 & 6 & 6 & 14 & 5 & 5 & 3 & - & - \\ Comp27 & 6183 & 31 & 2 & 2 & 17 & 2 & 2 & 2 & - & - \\ Comp6 & 90 & 4 & 6 & 0 & 4 & 6 & 0 & 2 & - & - \\ Csv2 & 45 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & - & - \\ Csv8 & 575 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 1 & - & - \\ Lang14 & 61 & 1 & 3 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ Lang21 & 5103 & 8 & 8 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & - \\ Lang22 & 1621 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & - & - & - \\ Lang30 & 161 & 11 & 10 & 0 & 8 & 8 & 0 & 5 & 2 & - \\ Lang31 & 345 & 39 & 0 & 0 & 13 & 0 & 0 & 1 & - & - \\ Lang40 & 7740 & 13 & 0 & 0 & 4 & 0 & 0 & 4 & - & - \\ Lang58 & 476 & 4 & 13 & 9 & 4 & 10 & 8 & 1 & 7 & 2 \\ Math94 & 791 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 1 & - & - \\ Math97 & 155 & 2 & 4 & 4 & 2 & 4 & 4 & 1 & 4 & 4 \\ Mock11 & 35 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ Mock21 & 105 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & - & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparing the results of AgxFaults (Agx), Single-path Control-Flow-Sensitive (FS), and Single-path Control-Flow-Insensitive (FI) approaches on real bugs.