Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userE-APR: Mapping the Effectiveness of Automated Program Repair
68
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Matias Martinez
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Automated Program Repair (APR) is a fast growing area with numerous new techniques being developed to tackle one of the most challenging software engineering problems. APR techniques have shown promising results, giving us hope that one day it will be possible for software to repair itself. In this paper, we focus on the problem of objective performance evaluation of APR techniques. We introduce a new approach, Explaining Automated Program Repair (E-APR), which identifies features of buggy programs that explain why a particular instance is difficult for an APR technique. E-APR is used to examine the diversity and quality of the buggy programs used by most researchers, and analyse the strengths and weaknesses of existing APR techniques. E-APR visualises an instance space of buggy programs, with each buggy program represented as a point in the space. The instance space is constructed to reveal areas of hard and easy buggy programs, and enables the strengths and weaknesses of APR techniques to be identified.
rate research
Read More
Software debugging, and program repair are among the most time-consuming and labor-intensive tasks in software engineering that would benefit a lot from automation. In this paper, we propose a novel automated program repair approach based on CodeBERT, which is a transformer-based neural architecture pre-trained on large corpus of source code. We fine-tune our model on the ManySStuBs4J small and large datasets to automatically generate the fix codes. The results show that our technique accurately predicts the fixed codes implemented by the developers in 19-72% of the cases, depending on the type of datasets, in less than a second per bug. We also observe that our method can generate varied-length fixes (short and long) and can fix different types of bugs, even if only a few instances of those types of bugs exist in the training dataset.
Automated program repair (APR) has attracted great research attention, and various techniques have been proposed. Search-based APR is one of the most important categories among these techniques. Existing researches focus on the design of effective mutation operators and searching algorithms to better find the correct patch. Despite various efforts, the effectiveness of these techniques are still limited by the search space explosion problem. One of the key factors attribute to this problem is the quality of fault spaces as reported by existing studies. This motivates us to study the importance of the fault space to the success of finding a correct patch. Our empirical study aims to answer three questions. Does the fault space significantly correlate with the performance of search-based APR? If so, are there any indicative measurements to approximate the accuracy of the fault space before applying expensive APR techniques? Are there any automatic methods that can improve the accuracy of the fault space? We observe that the accuracy of the fault space affects the effectiveness and efficiency of search-based APR techniques, e.g., the failure rate of GenProg could be as high as $60%$ when the real fix location is ranked lower than 10 even though the correct patch is in the search space. Besides, GenProg is able to find more correct patches and with fewer trials when given a fault space with a higher accuracy. We also find that the negative mutation coverage, which is designed in this study to measure the capability of a test suite to kill the mutants created on the statements executed by failing tests, is the most indicative measurement to estimate the efficiency of search-based APR. Finally, we confirm that automated generated test cases can help improve the accuracy of fault spaces, and further improve the performance of search-based APR techniques.
We introduce Learn2fix, the first human-in-the-loop, semi-automatic repair technique when no bug oracle--except for the user who is reporting the bug--is available. Our approach negotiates with the user the condition under which the bug is observed. Only when a budget of queries to the user is exhausted, it attempts to repair the bug. A query can be thought of as the following question: When executing this alternative test input, the program produces the following output; is the bug observed? Through systematic queries, Learn2fix trains an automatic bug oracle that becomes increasingly more accurate in predicting the users response. Our key challenge is to maximize the oracles accuracy in predicting which tests are bug-exposing given a small budget of queries. From the alternative tests that were labeled by the user, test-driven automatic repair produces the patch. Our experiments demonstrate that Learn2fix learns a sufficiently accurate automatic oracle with a reasonably low labeling effort (lt. 20 queries). Given Learn2fixs test suite, the GenProg test-driven repair tool produces a higher-quality patch (i.e., passing a larger proportion of validation tests) than using manual test suites provided with the repair benchmark.
Relative correctness is the property of a program to be more-correct than another with respect to a given specification. Whereas the traditional definition of (absolute) correctness divides candidate program into two classes (correct, and incorrect), relative correctness arranges candidate programs on the richer structure of a partial ordering. In other venues we discuss the impact of relative correctness on program derivation, and on program verification. In this paper, we discuss the impact of relative correctness on program testing; specifically, we argue that when we remove a fault from a program, we ought to test the new program for relative correctness over the old program, rather than for absolute correctness. We present analytical arguments to support our position, as well as an empirical argument in the form of a small program whose faults are removed in a stepwise manner as its relative correctness rises with each fault removal until we obtain a correct program.
Despite significant advances in automatic program repair (APR)techniques over the past decade, practical deployment remains an elusive goal. One of the important challenges in this regard is the general inability of current APR techniques to produce patches that require edits in multiple locations, i.e., multi-hunk patches. In this work, we present a novel APR technique that generalizes single-hunk repair techniques to include an important class of multi-hunk bugs, namely bugs that may require applying a substantially similar patch at a number of locations. We term such sets of repair locations as evolutionary siblings - similar looking code, instantiated in similar contexts, that are expected to undergo similar changes. At the heart of our proposed method is an analysis to accurately identify a set of evolutionary siblings, for a given bug. This analysis leverages three distinct sources of information, namely the test-suite spectrum, a novel code similarity analysis, and the revision history of the project. The discovered siblings are then simultaneously repaired in a similar fashion. We instantiate this technique in a tool called Hercules and demonstrate that it is able to correctly fix 49 bugs in the Defects4J dataset, the highest of any individual APR technique to date. This includes 15 multi-hunk bugs and overall 13 bugs which have not been fixed by any other technique so far.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
