MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1527815941 · doi:10.1002/stvr.1576

Automatic fault localization for client‐side JavaScript

2015· article· en· W1527815941 on OpenAlexafffund
Frolin S. Ocariza, Guanpeng Li, Karthik Pattabiraman, Ali Mesbah

Bibliographic record

VenueSoftware Testing Verification and Reliability · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaIntel Corporation
KeywordsJavaScriptUnobtrusive JavaScriptComputer scienceAjaxScripting languageWeb applicationDebuggingProgramming languageRich Internet applicationDocument Object ModelCode (set theory)Source codeDynamic web pageTracingOperating systemWorld Wide WebWeb serviceWeb page

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary JAVASCRIPTis 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 makeJAVASCRIPTcode error‐prone; unfortunately,JAVASCRIPTfault 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 localizeJAVASCRIPTfaults based on dynamic analysis, tracing and backward slicing ofJAVASCRIPTcode. This technique is capable of handling features ofJAVASCRIPTcode that have traditionally been difficult to analyse, includingeval, anonymous functions and minified code. The approach is implemented in an open source tool calledAUTOFLOX, and evaluation results indicate that it is capable of (1) automatically localizing DOM‐relatedJAVASCRIPTfaults with high accuracy (over 96%) and no false‐positives and (2) isolatingJAVASCRIPTfaults 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoftware Testing Verification and ReliabilitySame topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207