Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userVerifix: Verified Repair of Programming Assignments
124
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Umair Z. Ahmed
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Automated feedback generation for introductory programming assignments is useful for programming education. Most works try to generate feedback to correct a student program by comparing its behavior with an instructors reference program on selected tests. In this work, our aim is to generate verifiably correct program repairs as student feedback. The student assignment is aligned and composed with a reference solution in terms of control flow, and differences in data variables are automatically summarized via predicates to relate the variable names. Failed verification attempts for the equivalence of the two programs are exploited to obtain a collection of maxSMT queries, whose solutions point to repairs of the student assignment. We have conducted experiments on student assignments curated from a widely deployed intelligent tutoring system. Our results indicate that we can generate verified feedback in up to 58% of the assignments. More importantly, our system indicates when it is able to generate a verified feedback, which is then usable by novice students with high confidence.
rate research
Read More
A recent case study from AWS by Chong et al. proposes an effective methodology for Bounded Model Checking in industry. In this paper, we report on a follow up case study that explores the methodology from the perspective of three research questions: (a) can proof artifacts be used across verification tools; (b) are there bugs in verified code; and (c) can specifications be improved. To study these questions, we port the verification tasks for $texttt{aws-c-common}$ library to SEAHORN and KLEE. We show the benefits of using compiler semantics and cross-checking specifications with different verification techniques, and call for standardizing proof library extensions to increase specification reuse. The verification tasks discussed are publicly available online.
Smart contracts are automated or self-enforcing contracts that can be used to exchange assets without having to place trust in third parties. Many commercial transactions use smart contracts due to their potential benefits in terms of secure peer-to-peer transactions independent of external parties. Experience shows that many commonly used smart contracts are vulnerable to serious malicious attacks which may enable attackers to steal valuable assets of involving parties. There is therefore a need to apply analysis and automated repair techniques to detect and repair bugs in smart contracts before being deployed. In this work, we present the first general-purpose automated smart contract repair approach that is also gas-aware. Our repair method is search-based and searches among mutations of the buggy contract. Our method also considers the gas usage of the candidate patches by leveraging our novel notion of gas dominance relationship. We have made our smart contract repair tool SCRepair available open-source, for investigation by the wider community.
In verified generic programming, one cannot exploit the structure of concrete data types but has to rely on well chosen sets of specifications or abstract data types (ADTs). Functors and monads are at the core of many applications of functional programming. This raises the question of what useful ADTs for verified functors and monads could look like. The functorial map of many important monads preserves extensional equality. For instance, if $f, g : A rightarrow B$ are extensionally equal, that is, $forall x in A, f x = g x$, then $map f : List A rightarrow List B$ and $map g$ are also extensionally equal. This suggests that preservation of extensional equality could be a useful principle in verified generic programming. We explore this possibility with a minimalist approach: we deal with (the lack of) extensional equality in Martin-Lofs intensional type theories without extending the theories or using full-fledged setoids. Perhaps surprisingly, this minimal approach turns out to be extremely useful. It allows one to derive simple generic proofs of monadic laws but also verified, generic results in dynamical systems and control theory. In turn, these results avoid tedious code duplication and ad-hoc proofs. Thus, our work is a contribution towards pragmatic, verified generic programming.
We present TarTar, an automatic repair analysis tool that, given a timed diagnostic trace (TDT) obtained during the model checking of a timed automaton model, suggests possible syntactic repairs of the analyzed model. The suggested repairs include modified values for clock bounds in location invariants and transition guards, adding or removing clock resets, etc. The proposed repairs are guaranteed to eliminate executability of the given TDT, while preserving the overall functional behavior of the system. We give insights into the design and architecture of TarTar, and show that it can successfully repair 69% of the seeded errors in system models taken from a diverse suite of case studies.
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.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
