Using Machine Learning to Support Debugging with Tarantula
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
Using a specific machine learning technique, this paper proposes a way to identify suspicious statements during debugging. The technique is based on principles similar to Tarantula but addresses its main flaw: its difficulty to deal with the presence of multiple faults as it assumes that failing test cases execute the same fault(s). The improvement we present in this paper results from the use of C4.5 decision trees to identify various failure conditions based on information regarding the test cases' inputs and outputs. Failing test cases executing under similar conditions are then assumed to fail due to the same fault(s). Statements are then considered suspicious if they are covered by a large proportion of failing test cases that execute under similar conditions. We report on a case study that demonstrates improvement over the original Tarantula technique in terms of statement ranking. Another contribution of this paper is to show that failure conditions as modeled by a C4.5 decision tree accurately predict failures and can therefore be used as well to help debugging.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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