Counterexample-Preserving Reduction for Symbolic Model Checking

The cost of LTL model checking is highly sensitive to the length of the formula under verification. We observe that, under some specific conditions, the input LTL formula can be reduced to an easier-to-handle one before model checking. In our reduction, these two formulae need not to be logically equivalent, but they share the same counterexample set w.r.t the model. In the case that the model is symbolically represented, the condition enabling such reduction can be detected with a lightweight effort (e.g., with SAT-solving). In this paper, we tentatively name such technique "Counterexample-Preserving Reduction" (CePRe for short), and finally the proposed technquie is experimentally evaluated by adapting NuSMV

Large Language Models are Few-Shot Summarizers: Multi-Intent Comment Generation via In-Context Learning

Code comment generation aims at generating natural language descriptions for a code snippet to facilitate developers' program comprehension activities. Despite being studied for a long time, a bottleneck for existing approaches is that given a code snippet, they can only generate one comment while developers usually need to know information from diverse perspectives such as what is the functionality of this code snippet and how to use it. To tackle this limitation, this study empirically investigates the feasibility of utilizing large language models (LLMs) to generate comments that can fulfill developers' diverse intents. Our intuition is based on the facts that (1) the code and its pairwise comment are used during the pre-training process of LLMs to build the semantic connection between the natural language and programming language, and (2) comments in the real-world projects, which are collected for the pre-training, usually contain different developers' intents. We thus postulate that the LLMs can already understand the code from different perspectives after the pre-training. Indeed, experiments on two large-scale datasets demonstrate the rationale of our insights: by adopting the in-context learning paradigm and giving adequate prompts to the LLM (e.g., providing it with ten or more examples), the LLM can significantly outperform a state-of-the-art supervised learning approach on generating comments with multiple intents. Results also show that customized strategies for constructing the prompts and post-processing strategies for reranking the results can both boost the LLM's performances, which shed light on future research directions for using LLMs to achieve comment generation.Comment: Accepted by the 46th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2024

Compositional Mining of Multiple Object API Protocols through State Abstraction

API protocols specify correct sequences of method invocations. Despite their usefulness, API protocols are often unavailable in practice because writing them is cumbersome and error prone. Multiple object API protocols are more expressive than single object API protocols. However, the huge number of objects of typical object-oriented programs poses a major challenge to the automatic mining of multiple object API protocols: besides maintaining scalability, it is important to capture various object interactions. Current approaches utilize various heuristics to focus on small sets of methods. In this paper, we present a general, scalable, multiple object API protocols mining approach that can capture all object interactions. Our approach uses abstract field values to label object states during the mining process. We first mine single object typestates as finite state automata whose transitions are annotated with states of interacting objects before and after the execution of the corresponding method and then construct multiple object API protocols by composing these annotated single object typestates. We implement our approach for Java and evaluate it through a series of experiments

On the Impact of Flaky Tests in Automated Program Repair

The literature of Automated Program Repair is largely dominated by approaches that leverage test suites not only to expose bugs but also to validate the generated patches. Unfortunately, beyond the widely-discussed concern that test suites are an imperfect oracle because they can be incomplete, they can include tests that are flaky. A flaky test is one that can be passed or failed by a program in a non-deterministic way. Such tests are generally carefully removed from the repair benchmarks. In practice, however, flaky tests are available test suite of software repositories. To the best of our knowledge, no study has discussed this threat to validity for evaluation of program repair. In this work, we highlight this threat and further investigate the impact of flaky tests by reverting their removal from the Defects4J benchmark. Our study aims to characterize the impact of flaky tests for localizing bugs and the eventual influence on the repair performance. Among other insights, we find that (1) although flaky tests are few (≈0.3%) of total tests, they affect experiments related to a large proportion (98.9%) of Defects4J real-world faults; (2) most flaky tests (98%) actually provide deterministic results under specific environment configurations (with the jdk version influencing the results); (3) flaky tests drastically hinder the effectiveness of spectrum-based fault localization (e.g., the rankings of 90 bugs drop down while none of the bugs obtains better location results compared with results achieved without flaky tests); and (4) the repairability of APR tools is greatly affected by the presence of flaky tests (e.g., 10 state of the art APR tools can now fix significantly fewer bugs than when the benchmark is manually curated to remove flaky tests). Given that the detection of flaky tests is still nascent, we call for the program repair community to relax the artificial assumption that the test suite is free from flaky tests. One direction that we propose is to consider developing strategies where patches that partially-fix bugs are considered worthwhile: a patch may make the program pass some test cases but fail some (which may actually be the flaky ones)