Automatic fault localization for client‐side JavaScript
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary JAVASCRIPT is a scripting language that plays a prominent role in web applications today. It is dynamic, loosely typed and asynchronous and is extensively used to interact with the Document Object Model (DOM) at runtime. All these characteristics make JAVASCRIPT code error‐prone; unfortunately, JAVASCRIPT fault localization remains a tedious and mainly manual task. Despite these challenges, the problem has received very limited research attention. This paper proposes an automated technique to localize JAVASCRIPT faults based on dynamic analysis, tracing and backward slicing of JAVASCRIPT code. This technique is capable of handling features of JAVASCRIPT code that have traditionally been difficult to analyse, including eval , anonymous functions and minified code. The approach is implemented in an open source tool called AUTOFLOX , and evaluation results indicate that it is capable of (1) automatically localizing DOM‐related JAVASCRIPT faults with high accuracy (over 96%) and no false‐positives and (2) isolating JAVASCRIPT faults in production websites and actual bugs from real‐world web applications. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it