Algorithmic Debugging of Real-World Haskell Programs: Deriving Dependencies from the Cost Centre Stack

Existing algorithmic debuggers for Haskell require a transformation of all modules in a program, even libraries that the user does not want to debug and which may use language features not supported by the debugger. This is a pity, because a promising ap- proach to debugging is therefore not applicable to many real-world programs. We use the cost centre stack from the Glasgow Haskell Compiler profiling environment together with runtime value observations as provided by the Haskell Object Observation Debugger (HOOD) to collect enough information for algorithmic debugging. Program annotations are in suspected modules only. With this technique algorithmic debugging is applicable to a much larger set of Haskell programs. This demonstrates that for functional languages in general a simple stack trace extension is useful to support tasks such as profiling and debugging

Finding The Lazy Programmer's Bugs

Traditionally developers and testers created huge numbers of explicit tests, enumerating interesting cases, perhaps biased by what they believe to be the current boundary conditions of the function being tested. Or at least, they were supposed to. A major step forward was the development of property testing. Property testing requires the user to write a few functional properties that are used to generate tests, and requires an external library or tool to create test data for the tests. As such many thousands of tests can be created for a single property. For the purely functional programming language Haskell there are several such libraries; for example QuickCheck [CH00], SmallCheck and Lazy SmallCheck [RNL08]. Unfortunately, property testing still requires the user to write explicit tests. Fortunately, we note there are already many implicit tests present in programs. Developers may throw assertion errors, or the compiler may silently insert runtime exceptions for incomplete pattern matches. We attempt to automate the testing process using these implicit tests. Our contributions are in four main areas: (1) We have developed algorithms to automatically infer appropriate constructors and functions needed to generate test data without requiring additional programmer work or annotations. (2) To combine the constructors and functions into test expressions we take advantage of Haskell's lazy evaluation semantics by applying the techniques of needed narrowing and lazy instantiation to guide generation. (3) We keep the type of test data at its most general, in order to prevent committing too early to monomorphic types that cause needless wasted tests. (4) We have developed novel ways of creating Haskell case expressions to inspect elements inside returned data structures, in order to discover exceptions that may be hidden by laziness, and to make our test data generation algorithm more expressive. In order to validate our claims, we have implemented these techniques in Irulan, a fully automatic tool for generating systematic black-box unit tests for Haskell library code. We have designed Irulan to generate high coverage test suites and detect common programming errors in the process

Extrapolate: generalizing counterexamples of functional test properties

This paper presents a new tool called Extrapolate that automatically generalizes counterexamples found by property-based testing in Haskell. Example applications show that generalized counterexamples can inform the programmer more fully and more immediately what characterises failures. Extrapolate is able to produce more general results than similar tools. Although it is intrinsically unsound, as reported generalizations are based on testing, it works well for examples drawn from previous published work in this area

Lightweight Computation Tree Tracing for Lazy Functional Languages

A computation tree of a program execution describes computations of functions and their dependencies. A computation tree describes how a program works and is at the heart of algorithmic debugging. To generate a computation tree, existing algorithmic debuggers either use a complex implementation or yield a less informative approximation. We present a method for lazy functional languages that requires only a simple tracing library to generate a detailed computation tree. With our algorithmic debugger a programmer can debug any Haskell program by only importing our library and annotating suspected functions

Algorithmic debugging for complex lazy functional programs

An algorithmic debugger finds defects in programs by systematic search. It relies on the programmer to direct the search by answering a series of yes/no questions about the correctness of specific function applications and their results. Existing algorithmic debuggers for a lazy functional language work well for small simple programs but cannot be used to locate defects in complex programs for two reasons: Firstly, to collect the information required for algorithmic debugging existing debuggers use different but complex implementations. Therefore, these debuggers are hard to maintain and do not support all the latest language features. As a consequence, programs with unsupported language features cannot be debugged. Also inclusion of a library using unsupported languages features can make algorithmic debugging unusable even when the programmer is not interested in debugging the library. Secondly, algorithmic debugging breaks down when the size or number of questions is too great for the programmer to handle. This is a pity, because, even though algorithmic debugging is a promising method for locating defects, many real-world programs are too complex for the method to be usuable. I claim that the techniques in in this thesis make algorithmic debugging useable for a much more complex lazy functional programs. I present a novel method for collecting the information required for algorithmically debugging a lazy functional program. The method is non-invasive, uses program annotations in suspected modules only and has a simple implementation. My method supports all of Haskell, including laziness, higher-order functions and exceptions. Future language extensions can be supported without changes, or with minimal changes, to the implementation of the debugger. With my method the programmer can focus on untrusted code -- lots of trusted libraries are unaffected. This makes traces, and hence the amount of questions that needs to be answered, more manageable. I give a type-generic definition to support custom types defined by the programmer. Furthermore, I propose a method that re-uses properties to answer automatically some of the questions arising during algorithmic debugging, and to replace others by simpler questions. Properties may already be present in the code for testing; the programmer can also encode a specification or reference implementation as a property, or add a new property in response to a statement they are asked to judge

Tools for Discovery, Refinement and Generalization of Functional Properties by Enumerative Testing

This thesis presents techniques for discovery, refinement and generalization of properties about functional programs. These techniques work by reasoning from test results: their results are surprisingly accurate in practice, despite an inherent uncertainty in principle. These techniques are validated by corresponding implementations in Haskell and for Haskell programs: Speculate, FitSpec and Extrapolate. Speculate discovers properties given a collection of black-box function signatures. Properties discovered by Speculate include inequalities and conditional equations. These properties can contribute to program understanding, documentation and regression testing. FitSpec guides refinements of properties based on results of black-box mutation testing. These refinements include completion and minimization of property sets. Extrapolate generalizes counterexamples of test properties. Generalized counterexamples include repeated variables and side-conditions and can inform the programmer what characterizes failures. Several example applications demonstrate the effectiveness of Speculate, FitSpec and Extrapolate

Programmiersprachen und Rechenkonzepte

Seit 1984 veranstaltet die GI--Fachgruppe "Programmiersprachen und Rechenkonzepte" regelmäßig im Frühjahr einen Workshop im Physikzentrum Bad Honnef. Das Treffen dient in erster Linie dem gegenseitigen Kennenlernen, dem Erfahrungsaustausch, der Diskussion und der Vertiefung gegenseitiger Kontakte

A Survey of Algorithmic Debugging

"© ACM, 2017. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of ACM for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in ACM Computing Surveys, {50, 4, 2017} https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3106740"[EN] Algorithmic debugging is a technique proposed in 1982 by E. Y. Shapiro in the context of logic programming. This survey shows how the initial ideas have been developed to become a widespread debugging schema ftting many diferent programming paradigms and with applications out of the program debugging feld. We describe the general framework and the main issues related to the implementations in diferent programming paradigms and discuss several proposed improvements and optimizations. We also review the main algorithmic debugger tools that have been implemented so far and compare their features. From this comparison, we elaborate a summary of desirable characteristics that should be considered when implementing future algorithmic debuggers.This work has been partially supported by the EU (FEDER) and the Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad under grant TIN2013-44742-C4-1-R, TIN2016-76843-C4-1-R, StrongSoft (TIN2012-39391-C04-04), and TRACES (TIN2015-67522-C3-3-R) by the Generalitat Valenciana under grant PROMETEO-II/2015/013 (SmartLogic) and by the Comunidad de Madrid project N-Greens Software-CM (S2013/ICE-2731).Caballero, R.; Riesco, A.; Silva, J. (2017). A Survey of Algorithmic Debugging. ACM Computing Surveys. 50(4):1-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3106740S135504Abramson, D., Foster, I., Michalakes, J., & Sosič, R. (1996). Relative debugging. Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 69-77. doi:10.1145/240455.240475K. R. Apt H. A. Blair and A. Walker. 1988. Towards a theory of declarative knowledge. In Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming J. Minker (Ed.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. San Francisco CA 89--148. 10.1016/B978-0-934613-40-8.50006-3 K. R. Apt H. A. Blair and A. Walker. 1988. Towards a theory of declarative knowledge. In Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming J. Minker (Ed.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. San Francisco CA 89--148. 10.1016/B978-0-934613-40-8.50006-3Arora, T., Ramakrishnan, R., Roth, W. G., Seshadri, P., & Srivastava, D. (1993). Explaining program execution in deductive systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 101-119. doi:10.1007/3-540-57530-8_7E. Av-Ron. 1984. Top-Down Diagnosis of Prolog Programs. Ph.D. Dissertation. Weizmann Institute. E. Av-Ron. 1984. Top-Down Diagnosis of Prolog Programs. Ph.D. Dissertation. Weizmann Institute.A. Beaulieu. 2005. Learning SQL. O’Reilly Farnham UK. A. Beaulieu. 2005. Learning SQL. O’Reilly Farnham UK.D. Binks. 1995. Declarative Debugging in Gödel. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Bristol. D. Binks. 1995. Declarative Debugging in Gödel. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Bristol.B. Braßel and H. Siegel. 2008. Debugging Lazy Functional Programs by Asking the Oracle. Springer-Verlag Berlin 183--200. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85373-2_11 10.1007/978-3-540-85373-2_11 B. Braßel and H. Siegel. 2008. Debugging Lazy Functional Programs by Asking the Oracle. Springer-Verlag Berlin 183--200. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85373-2_11 10.1007/978-3-540-85373-2_11Caballero, R. (2005). A declarative debugger of incorrect answers for constraint functional-logic programs. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Curry and functional logic programming - WCFLP ’05. doi:10.1145/1085099.1085102Caballero, R., García-Ruiz, Y., & Sáenz-Pérez, F. (2012). Declarative Debugging of Wrong and Missing Answers for SQL Views. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 73-87. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29822-6_9Caballero, R., García-Ruiz, Y., & Sáenz-Pérez, F. (2015). Debugging of wrong and missing answers for datalog programs with constraint handling rules. Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming - PPDP ’15. doi:10.1145/2790449.2790522Caballero, R., Martin-Martin, E., Riesco, A., & Tamarit, S. (2015). A zoom-declarative debugger for sequential Erlang programs. Science of Computer Programming, 110, 104-118. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2015.06.011Caballero, R., & Rodríguez-Artalejo, M. (2002). A Declarative Debugging System for Lazy Functional Logic Programs. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 64, 113-175. doi:10.1016/s1571-0661(04)80349-9Ceri, S., Gottlob, G., & Tanca, L. (1989). What you always wanted to know about Datalog (and never dared to ask). IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 1(1), 146-166. doi:10.1109/69.43410Chen, M., Mao, S., & Liu, Y. (2014). Big Data: A Survey. Mobile Networks and Applications, 19(2), 171-209. doi:10.1007/s11036-013-0489-0Chitil, O., & Davie, T. (2008). Comprehending finite maps for algorithmic debugging of higher-order functional programs. Proceedings of the 10th international ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of declarative programming - PPDP ’08. doi:10.1145/1389449.1389475Chitil, O., Faddegon, M., & Runciman, C. (2016). A Lightweight Hat. Proceedings of the 28th Symposium on the Implementation and Application of Functional Programming Languages - IFL 2016. doi:10.1145/3064899.3064904O. Chitil C. Runciman and M. Wallace. 2001. Freja Hat and Hood—A Comparative Evaluation of Three Systems for Tracing and Debugging Lazy Functional Programs. Springer Berlin 176--193. O. Chitil C. Runciman and M. Wallace. 2001. Freja Hat and Hood—A Comparative Evaluation of Three Systems for Tracing and Debugging Lazy Functional Programs. Springer Berlin 176--193.O. Chitil C. Runciman and Malcolm Wallace. 2003. Transforming Haskell for Tracing. Springer-Verlag Berlin 165--181. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44854-3_11 10.1007/3-540-44854-3_11 O. Chitil C. Runciman and Malcolm Wallace. 2003. Transforming Haskell for Tracing. Springer-Verlag Berlin 165--181. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44854-3_11 10.1007/3-540-44854-3_11Minh Ngoc Dinh, Abramson, D., & Chao Jin. (2014). Scalable Relative Debugging. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 25(3), 740-749. doi:10.1109/tpds.2013.86Faddegon, M., & Chitil, O. (2015). Algorithmic debugging of real-world haskell programs: deriving dependencies from the cost centre stack. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 50(6), 33-42. doi:10.1145/2813885.2737985Faddegon, M., & Chitil, O. (2016). Lightweight computation tree tracing for lazy functional languages. Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation - PLDI 2016. doi:10.1145/2908080.2908104Ferrand, G. (1987). Error diagnosis in logic programming an adaptation of E.Y. Shapiro’s method. The Journal of Logic Programming, 4(3), 177-198. doi:10.1016/0743-1066(87)90001-xFritzson, P., Shahmehri, N., Kamkar, M., & Gyimothy, T. (1992). Generalized algorithmic debugging and testing. ACM Letters on Programming Languages and Systems, 1(4), 303-322. doi:10.1145/161494.161498Fromherz, M. P. J. (s. f.). Towards declarative debugging of concurrent constraint programs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 88-100. doi:10.1007/bfb0019403Harman, M., & Hierons, R. (2001). An overview of program slicing. Software Focus, 2(3), 85-92. doi:10.1002/swf.41F. Henderson T. Conway Z. Somogyi D. Jeffery P. Schachte S. Taylor C. Speirs T. Dowd R. Becket M. Brown and P. Wang. 2014. The Mercury Language Reference Manual (Version 14.01.1). The University of Melbourne. F. Henderson T. Conway Z. Somogyi D. Jeffery P. Schachte S. Taylor C. Speirs T. Dowd R. Becket M. Brown and P. Wang. 2014. The Mercury Language Reference Manual (Version 14.01.1). The University of Melbourne.C. Hermanns and H. Kuchen. 2013. Hybrid Debugging of Java Programs. Springer-Verlag Berlin 91--107. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36177-7_6 10.1007/978-3-642-36177-7_6 C. Hermanns and H. Kuchen. 2013. Hybrid Debugging of Java Programs. Springer-Verlag Berlin 91--107. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36177-7_6 10.1007/978-3-642-36177-7_6Hirunkitti, V., & Hogger, C. J. (s. f.). A generalised query minimisation for program debugging. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 153-170. doi:10.1007/bfb0019407Hughes, J. (2010). Software Testing with QuickCheck. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 183-223. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17685-2_6G. Hutton. 2016. Programming in Haskell. Cambridge University Press Cambridge UK. G. Hutton. 2016. Programming in Haskell. Cambridge University Press Cambridge UK.Insa, D., & Silva, J. (2010). An algorithmic debugger for Java. 2010 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance. doi:10.1109/icsm.2010.5609661Insa, D., & Silva, J. (2011). Optimal Divide and Query. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 224-238. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24769-9_17Insa, D., & Silva, J. (2011). An optimal strategy for algorithmic debugging. 2011 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2011). doi:10.1109/ase.2011.6100055D. Insa and J. Silva. 2011c. Scaling Up Algorithmic Debugging with Virtual Execution Trees. Springer-Verlag Berlin 149--163. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20551-4_10 10.1007/978-3-642-20551-4_10 D. Insa and J. Silva. 2011c. Scaling Up Algorithmic Debugging with Virtual Execution Trees. Springer-Verlag Berlin 149--163. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20551-4_10 10.1007/978-3-642-20551-4_10D. Insa and J. Silva. 2015a. Automatic transformation of iterative loops into recursive methods. Information 8 Software Technology 58 (2015) 95--109. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.10.001 10.1016/j.infsof.2014.10.001 D. Insa and J. Silva. 2015a. Automatic transformation of iterative loops into recursive methods. Information 8 Software Technology 58 (2015) 95--109. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.10.001 10.1016/j.infsof.2014.10.001Insa, D., & Silva, J. (2015). A Generalized Model for Algorithmic Debugging. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 261-276. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27436-2_16Insa, D., Silva, J., & Riesco, A. (2013). Speeding Up Algorithmic Debugging Using Balanced Execution Trees. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 133-151. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38916-0_8Insa, D., Silva, J., & Tomás, C. (2013). Enhancing Declarative Debugging with Loop Expansion and Tree Compression. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 71-88. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38197-3_6K. Jensen and N. Wirth. 1974. PASCAL User Manual and Report. Springer-Verlag Berlin. 10.1007/978-3-662-21554-8 K. Jensen and N. Wirth. 1974. PASCAL User Manual and Report. Springer-Verlag Berlin. 10.1007/978-3-662-21554-8Jia, Y., & Harman, M. (2011). An Analysis and Survey of the Development of Mutation Testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 37(5), 649-678. doi:10.1109/tse.2010.62Kamkar, M., Shahmehri, N., & Fritzson, P. (s. f.). Bug localization by algorithmic debugging and program slicing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 60-74. doi:10.1007/bfb0024176S. Köhler B. Ludäscher and Y. Smaragdakis. 2012. Declarative Datalog Debugging for Mere Mortals. Springer-Verlag Berlin 111--122. S. Köhler B. Ludäscher and Y. Smaragdakis. 2012. Declarative Datalog Debugging for Mere Mortals. Springer-Verlag Berlin 111--122.Kouh, H.-J., & Yoo, W.-H. (2003). The Efficient Debugging System for Locating Logical Errors in Java Programs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 684-693. doi:10.1007/3-540-44839-x_72Benzmüller, C., & Miller, D. (2014). Automation of Higher-Order Logic. Handbook of the History of Logic, 215-254. doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-51624-4.50005-8Kowalski, R., & Kuehner, D. (1971). Linear resolution with selection function. Artificial Intelligence, 2(3-4), 227-260. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(71)90012-9K. Kuchcinski W. Drabent and J. Maluszynski. 1993. Automatic Diagnosis of VLSI Digital Circuits Using Algorithmic Debugging. Springer-Verlag Berlin 350--367. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BFb0019419 10.1007/BFb0019419 K. Kuchcinski W. Drabent and J. Maluszynski. 1993. Automatic Diagnosis of VLSI Digital Circuits Using Algorithmic Debugging. Springer-Verlag Berlin 350--367. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BFb0019419 10.1007/BFb0019419S. Liang. 1999. Java Native Interface: Programmer’s Guide and Reference (1st ed.). Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc. Boston MA. S. Liang. 1999. Java Native Interface: Programmer’s Guide and Reference (1st ed.). Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc. Boston MA.Lloyd, J. W. (1987). Declarative error diagnosis. New Generation Computing, 5(2), 133-154. doi:10.1007/bf03037396J. W. Lloyd. 1987b. Foundations of Logic Programming (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag Berlin. 10.1007/978-3-642-83189-8 J. W. Lloyd. 1987b. Foundations of Logic Programming (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag Berlin. 10.1007/978-3-642-83189-8W. Lux. 2006. Münster Curry User’s guide (Release 0.9.10 of May 10 2006). Retrieved from http://danae.uni-muenster.de/∼lux/curry/user.pdf. W. Lux. 2006. Münster Curry User’s guide (Release 0.9.10 of May 10 2006). Retrieved from http://danae.uni-muenster.de/∼lux/curry/user.pdf.Lux, W. (2008). Declarative Debugging Meets the World. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 216, 65-77. doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2008.06.034I. MacLarty. 2005. Practical Declarative Debugging of Mercury Programs. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering The University of Melbourne. I. MacLarty. 2005. Practical Declarative Debugging of Mercury Programs. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering The University of Melbourne.Naganuma, J., Ogura, T., & Hoshino, T. (s. f.). High-level design validation using algorithmic debugging. Proceedings of European Design and Test Conference EDAC-ETC-EUROASIC. doi:10.1109/edtc.1994.326833Naish, L. (1992). Declarative diagnosis of missing answers. New Generation Computing, 10(3), 255-285. doi:10.1007/bf03037939H. Nilsson. 1998. Declarative Debugging for Lazy Functional Languages. Ph.D. Dissertation. Linköping Sweden. H. Nilsson. 1998. Declarative Debugging for Lazy Functional Languages. Ph.D. Dissertation. Linköping Sweden.NILSSON, H. (2001). How to look busy while being as lazy as ever: the Implementation of a lazy functional debugger. Journal of Functional Programming, 11(6), 629-671. doi:10.1017/s095679680100418xNilsson, H., & Fritzson, P. (s. f.). Algorithmic debugging for lazy functional languages. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 385-399. doi:10.1007/3-540-55844-6_149Nilsson, H., & Fritzson, P. (1994). Algorithmic debugging for lazy functional languages. Journal of Functional Programming, 4(3), 337-369. doi:10.1017/s095679680000109xNilsson, H., & Sparud, J. (1997). Automated Software Engineering, 4(2), 121-150. doi:10.1023/a:1008681016679Ostrand, T. J., & Balcer, M. J. (1988). The category-partition method for specifying and generating fuctional tests. Communications of the ACM, 31(6), 676-686. doi:10.1145/62959.62964Pereira, L. M. (1986). Rational debugging in logic programming. Third International Conference on Logic Programming, 203-210. doi:10.1007/3-540-16492-8_76B. Pope. 2006. A Declarative Debugger for Haskell. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Melbourne Australia. B. Pope. 2006. A Declarative Debugger for Haskell. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Melbourne Australia.Ramakrishnan, R., & Ullman, J. D. (1995). A survey of deductive database systems. The Journal of Logic Programming, 23(2), 125-149. doi:10.1016/0743-1066(94)00039-9Riesco, A., Verdejo, A., Martí-Oliet, N., & Caballero, R. (2012). Declarative debugging of rewriting logic specifications. The Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming, 81(7-8), 851-897. doi:10.1016/j.jlap.2011.06.004DeRose, L., Gontarek, A., Vose, A., Moench, R., Abramson, D., Dinh, M. N., & Jin, C. (2015). Relative debugging for a highly parallel hybrid computer system. Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis on - SC ’15. doi:10.1145/2807591.2807605Runeson, P. (2006). A survey of unit testing practices. IEEE Software, 23(4), 22-29. doi:10.1109/ms.2006.91Russo, F., & Sancassani, M. (1992). A declarative debugging environment for DATALOG. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 433-441. doi:10.1007/3-540-55460-2_32E. Y. Shapiro. 1982a. Algorithmic Program Debugging. MIT Press Cambridge MA. E. Y. Shapiro. 1982a. Algorithmic Program Debugging. MIT Press Cambridge MA.Shapiro, E. Y. (1982). Algorithmic program diagnosis. Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages - POPL ’82. doi:10.1145/582153.582185Shmueli, O., & Tsur, S. (1991). Logical diagnosis ofLDL programs. New Generation Computing, 9(3-4), 277-303. doi:10.1007/bf03037166Silva, J. (s. f.). A Comparative Study of Algorithmic Debugging Strategies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 143-159. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-71410-1_11Silva, J. (2011). A survey on algorithmic debugging strategies. Advances in Engineering Software, 42(11), 976-991. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2011.05.024Silva, J., & Chitil, O. (2006). Combining algorithmic debugging and program slicing. Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of declarative programming - PPDP ’06. doi:10.1145/1140335.1140355J. A. Silva E. R. Faria R. C. Barros E. R. Hruschka A. C. P. L. F. de Carvalho and J. Gama. 2013. Data stream clustering: A survey. Comput. Surv. 46 1 Article 13 (July 2013) 31 pages.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2522968.2522981 10.1145/2522968.2522981 J. A. Silva E. R. Faria R. C. Barros E. R. Hruschka A. C. P. L. F. de Carvalho and J. Gama. 2013. Data stream clustering: A survey. Comput. Surv. 46 1 Article 13 (July 2013) 31 pages.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2522968.2522981 10.1145/2522968.2522981SOSIČ, R., & ABRAMSON, D. (1997). Guard: A Relative Debugger. Software: Practice and Experience, 27(2), 185-206. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-024x(199702)27:23.0.co;2-dL. Sterling and E. Shapiro. 1986. The Art of Prolog: Advanced Programming Techniques. The MIT Press Cambridge MA. L. Sterling and E. Shapiro. 1986. The Art of Prolog: Advanced Programming Techniques. The MIT Press Cambridge MA.P. Kambam Sugavanam. 2013. Debugging Framework for Attribute Grammars. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota. P. Kambam Sugavanam. 2013. Debugging Framework for Attribute Grammars. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota.Tamarit, S., Riesco, A., Martin-Martin, E., & Caballero, R. (2016). Debugging Meets Testing in Erlang. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 171-180. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41135-4_10A. Tessier and G. Ferrand. 2000. Declarative diagnosis in the CLP scheme. In Analysis and Visualization Tools for Constraint Programming: Constraint Debugging Pierre Deransart Manuel V. Hermenegildo and Jan Maluszynski (Eds.). Springer-Verlag Berlin 151--174. 10.1007/10722311_6 A. Tessier and G. Ferrand. 2000. Declarative diagnosis in the CLP scheme. In Analysis and Visualization Tools for Constraint Programming: Constraint Debugging Pierre Deransart Manuel V. Hermenegildo and Jan Maluszynski (Eds.). Springer-Verlag Berlin 151--174. 10.1007/10722311_6Zinn, C. (2013). Algorithmic Debugging for Intelligent Tutoring: How to Use Multiple Models and Improve Diagnosis. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 272-283. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40942-4_24Zinn, C. (2014). Algorithmic Debugging and Literate Programming to Generate Feedback in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. KI 2014: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, 37-48. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11206-0_

A Lightweight Hat: Simple Type-Preserving Instrumentation for Self-Tracing Lazy Functional Programs

Existing methods for generating a detailed trace of a computation of a lazy functional program are complex. These complications limit the use of tracing in practice. However, such a detailed trace is desirable for understanding and debugging a lazy functional program. Here we present a lightweight method that instruments a program to generate such a trace, namely the augmented redex trail introduced by the Haskell tracer Hat. The new method is a major step towards an omniscient debugger for real-world Haskell programs

A Type Generic Definition for Debugging Lazy Functional Programs by Value Observation

Observing intermediate values helps to understand what is going on when your program runs. Gill presented an observation method for lazy functional languages that preserves the program's semantics. However, users need to define for each type how its values are observed: a laborious task and strictness of the program can easily be affected. Here we define how any value can be observed based on the structure of its type by applying generic programming. Furthermore we present an extension to specify per observation point how much to observe of a value