JCHARMING: A bug reproduction approach using crash traces and directed model checking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to their inherent complexity, software systems are pledged to be released with bugs. These bugs manifest themselves on client's computers, causing crashes and undesired behaviors. Field crashes, in particular, are challenging to understand and fix as the information provided by the impacted customers are often scarce and inaccurate. To address this issue, there is a need to find ways for automatically reproducing the crash in a lab environment in order to fully understand its root causes. Crash reproduction is also an important step towards developing adequate patches. In this paper, we propose a novel crash reproduction approach, called JCHARMING (Java CrasH Automatic Reproduction by directed Model checkING). JCHARMING uses crash traces and model checking to identify program statements needed to reproduce a crash. Our approach takes advantage of the completeness provided by model checking while ignoring unneeded system states by means of information found in crash traces combined with static slices. We show the effectiveness of JCHARMING by applying it to seven different open source programs cumulating more than one million lines of code scattered in around 7000 classes. Overall, JCHARMING was able to reproduce 85% of the submitted bugs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".