Spectrum-Based Fault Localization in Model Transformations

Model transformations play a cornerstone role in Model-Driven Engineering (MDE), as they provide the essential mechanisms for manipulating and transforming models. The correctness of software built using MDE techniques greatly relies on the correctness of model transformations. However, it is challenging and error prone to debug them, and the situation gets more critical as the size and complexity of model transformations grow, where manual debugging is no longer possible. Spectrum-Based Fault Localization (SBFL) uses the results of test cases and their corresponding code coverage information to estimate the likelihood of each program component (e.g., statements) of being faulty. In this article we present an approach to apply SBFL for locating the faulty rules in model transformations. We evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of the approach by comparing the effectiveness of 18 different stateof- the-art SBFL techniques at locating faults in model transformations. Evaluation results revealed that the best techniques, namely Kulcynski2, Mountford, Ochiai, and Zoltar, lead the debugger to inspect a maximum of three rules to locate the bug in around 74% of the cases. Furthermore, we compare our approach with a static approach for fault localization in model transformations, observing a clear superiority of the proposed SBFL-based method.Comisión Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnología TIN2015-70560-RJunta de Andalucía P12-TIC-186

Where Are My Intelligent Assistant's Mistakes? A Systematic Testing Approach

Intelligent assistants are handling increasingly critical tasks, but until now, end users have had no way to systematically assess where their assistants make mistakes. For some intelligent assistants, this is a serious problem: if the assistant is doing work that is important, such as assisting with qualitative research or monitoring an elderly parent’s safety, the user may pay a high cost for unnoticed mistakes. This paper addresses the problem with WYSIWYT/ML (What You See Is What You Test for Machine Learning), a human/computer partnership that enables end users to systematically test intelligent assistants. Our empirical evaluation shows that WYSIWYT/ML helped end users find assistants’ mistakes significantly more effectively than ad hoc testing. Not only did it allow users to assess an assistant’s work on an average of 117 predictions in only 10 minutes, it also scaled to a much larger data set, assessing an assistant’s work on 623 out of 1,448 predictions using only the users’ original 10 minutes’ testing effort

Automated Fixing of Programs with Contracts

This paper describes AutoFix, an automatic debugging technique that can fix faults in general-purpose software. To provide high-quality fix suggestions and to enable automation of the whole debugging process, AutoFix relies on the presence of simple specification elements in the form of contracts (such as pre- and postconditions). Using contracts enhances the precision of dynamic analysis techniques for fault detection and localization, and for validating fixes. The only required user input to the AutoFix supporting tool is then a faulty program annotated with contracts; the tool produces a collection of validated fixes for the fault ranked according to an estimate of their suitability. In an extensive experimental evaluation, we applied AutoFix to over 200 faults in four code bases of different maturity and quality (of implementation and of contracts). AutoFix successfully fixed 42% of the faults, producing, in the majority of cases, corrections of quality comparable to those competent programmers would write; the used computational resources were modest, with an average time per fix below 20 minutes on commodity hardware. These figures compare favorably to the state of the art in automated program fixing, and demonstrate that the AutoFix approach is successfully applicable to reduce the debugging burden in real-world scenarios.Comment: Minor changes after proofreadin

Amortising the Cost of Mutation Based Fault Localisation using Statistical Inference

Mutation analysis can effectively capture the dependency between source code and test results. This has been exploited by Mutation Based Fault Localisation (MBFL) techniques. However, MBFL techniques suffer from the need to expend the high cost of mutation analysis after the observation of failures, which may present a challenge for its practical adoption. We introduce SIMFL (Statistical Inference for Mutation-based Fault Localisation), an MBFL technique that allows users to perform the mutation analysis in advance against an earlier version of the system. SIMFL uses mutants as artificial faults and aims to learn the failure patterns among test cases against different locations of mutations. Once a failure is observed, SIMFL requires either almost no or very small additional cost for analysis, depending on the used inference model. An empirical evaluation of SIMFL using 355 faults in Defects4J shows that SIMFL can successfully localise up to 103 faults at the top, and 152 faults within the top five, on par with state-of-the-art alternatives. The cost of mutation analysis can be further reduced by mutation sampling: SIMFL retains over 80% of its localisation accuracy at the top rank when using only 10% of generated mutants, compared to results obtained without sampling

Automatic Repair of Real Bugs: An Experience Report on the Defects4J Dataset

Defects4J is a large, peer-reviewed, structured dataset of real-world Java bugs. Each bug in Defects4J is provided with a test suite and at least one failing test case that triggers the bug. In this paper, we report on an experiment to explore the effectiveness of automatic repair on Defects4J. The result of our experiment shows that 47 bugs of the Defects4J dataset can be automatically repaired by state-of- the-art repair. This sets a baseline for future research on automatic repair for Java. We have manually analyzed 84 different patches to assess their real correctness. In total, 9 real Java bugs can be correctly fixed with test-suite based repair. This analysis shows that test-suite based repair suffers from under-specified bugs, for which trivial and incorrect patches still pass the test suite. With respect to practical applicability, it takes in average 14.8 minutes to find a patch. The experiment was done on a scientific grid, totaling 17.6 days of computation time. All their systems and experimental results are publicly available on Github in order to facilitate future research on automatic repair