An empirical investigation into path divergences for concolic execution using CREST
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recently, concolic execution has become a hotspot in the domain of software testing and program analysis. However, a practical challenge, called path divergence, impairs the soundness and completeness of concolic execution. A path divergence indicates the tested program runs an unpredicted path. In this work, we carry out a comprehensive empirical study on path divergences using an open‐source concolic execution tool, named CREST. To make the investigation representative, we select 120 test units randomly from 21 different open‐source programs. The results are interesting, and will provide insight to solve the challenging path‐divergence problem. First, about one‐half of test units suffer from path divergences, indicating path divergences are so prevalent that the issue is worthy of great attention. Second, quite a number of generated test inputs drive test units to take divergent paths. This means testers need considerable effort to eliminate the misleading test inputs before aggregating them to a test suite. Third, we dig out ten divergent patterns through manual analysis of each path divergence. Among them, the three most prevalent ones, which are exceptions, external calls, and type casts, lead to almost 82% of path divergences. Finally, we discuss several countermeasures to overcome path divergences. 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".