MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127229466 · doi:10.5555/2337223.2337257

Automated repair of HTML generation errors in PHP applications using string constraint solving

2012· article· en· W2127229466 on OpenAlexaff
Hesam Samimi, Max Schäfer, Shay Artzi, Todd Millstein, Frank Tip, Laurie Hendren

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb Application Security Vulnerabilities
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePlug-inString (physics)Programming languageConstraint (computer-aided design)Test suiteHTML elementSuiteConstant (computer programming)Web applicationInformation retrievalWeb pageSoftware engineeringTest caseWorld Wide WebMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract—PHP web applications routinely generate invalid HTML. Modern browsers silently correct HTML errors, but sometimes malformed pages render inconsistently, cause browser crashes, or expose security vulnerabilities. Fixing errors in generated pages is usually straightforward, but repairing the generating PHP program can be much harder. We observe that malformed HTML is often produced by incorrect constant prints, i.e., statements that print string literals, and present two tools for automatically repairing such HTML generation errors. PHPQuickFix repairs simple bugs by statically analyzing individual prints. PHPRepair handles more general repairs using a dynamic approach. Based on a test suite, the property that all tests should produce their expected output is encoded as a string constraint over variables representing constant prints. Solving this constraint describes how constant prints must be modified to make all tests pass. Both tools were implemented as an Eclipse plugin and evaluated on PHP programs containing hundreds of HTML generation errors, most of which our tools were able to repair automatically. Keywords-PHP; automated repair; string constraints I.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations97
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWeb Application Security VulnerabilitiesFrench-language works237,207