Combining hardware and software instrumentation to classify program executions

Several research efforts have studied ways to infer properties of software systems from program spectra gathered from the running systems, usually with software-level instrumentation. While these efforts appear to produce accurate classifications, detailed understanding of their costs and potential cost-benefit tradeoffs is lacking. In this work we present a hybrid instrumentation approach which uses hardware performance counters to gather program spectra at very low cost. This underlying data is further augmented with data captured by minimal amounts of software-level instrumentation. We also evaluate this hybrid approach by comparing it to other existing approaches. We conclude that these hybrid spectra can reliably distinguish failed executions from successful executions at a fraction of the runtime overhead cost of using software-based execution data

Machine Learning in Wireless Sensor Networks: Algorithms, Strategies, and Applications

Wireless sensor networks monitor dynamic environments that change rapidly over time. This dynamic behavior is either caused by external factors or initiated by the system designers themselves. To adapt to such conditions, sensor networks often adopt machine learning techniques to eliminate the need for unnecessary redesign. Machine learning also inspires many practical solutions that maximize resource utilization and prolong the lifespan of the network. In this paper, we present an extensive literature review over the period 2002-2013 of machine learning methods that were used to address common issues in wireless sensor networks (WSNs). The advantages and disadvantages of each proposed algorithm are evaluated against the corresponding problem. We also provide a comparative guide to aid WSN designers in developing suitable machine learning solutions for their specific application challenges.Comment: Accepted for publication in IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorial

Automatic Repair of Buggy If Conditions and Missing Preconditions with SMT

We present Nopol, an approach for automatically repairing buggy if conditions and missing preconditions. As input, it takes a program and a test suite which contains passing test cases modeling the expected behavior of the program and at least one failing test case embodying the bug to be repaired. It consists of collecting data from multiple instrumented test suite executions, transforming this data into a Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT) problem, and translating the SMT result -- if there exists one -- into a source code patch. Nopol repairs object oriented code and allows the patches to contain nullness checks as well as specific method calls.Comment: CSTVA'2014, India (2014

Time-Space Efficient Regression Testing for Configurable Systems

Configurable systems are those that can be adapted from a set of options. They are prevalent and testing them is important and challenging. Existing approaches for testing configurable systems are either unsound (i.e., they can miss fault-revealing configurations) or do not scale. This paper proposes EvoSPLat, a regression testing technique for configurable systems. EvoSPLat builds on our previously-developed technique, SPLat, which explores all dynamically reachable configurations from a test. EvoSPLat is tuned for two scenarios of use in regression testing: Regression Configuration Selection (RCS) and Regression Test Selection (RTS). EvoSPLat for RCS prunes configurations (not tests) that are not impacted by changes whereas EvoSPLat for RTS prunes tests (not configurations) which are not impacted by changes. Handling both scenarios in the context of evolution is important. Experimental results show that EvoSPLat is promising. We observed a substantial reduction in time (22%) and in the number of configurations (45%) for configurable Java programs. In a case study on a large real-world configurable system (GCC), EvoSPLat reduced 35% of the running time. Comparing EvoSPLat with sampling techniques, 2-wise was the most efficient technique, but it missed two bugs whereas EvoSPLat detected all bugs four times faster than 6-wise, on average.Comment: 14 page