MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408469942 · doi:10.1002/smr.1789

A bug reproduction approach based on directed model checking and crash traces

2016· article· en· W2408469942 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Software Evolution and Process · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrashComputer scienceJavaSlicingProgramming languageModel checkingTask (project management)Program slicingOpen sourceDebuggingSoftwareWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Reproducing a bug that caused a system to crash is an important task for uncovering the causes of the crash and providing appropriate fixes. In this paper, we propose a novel crash reproduction approach that combines directed model checking and backward slicing to identify the program statements needed to reproduce a crash. Our approach, named JCHARMING (Java CrasH Automatic Reproduction by directed Model checkING), uses information found in crash traces combined with static program slices to guide a model checking engine in an optimal way. We show that JCHARMING is efficient in reproducing bugs from 10 different open source systems. Overall, JCHARMING is able to reproduce 80% of the bugs used in this study in an average time of 19 min. Copyright © 2016 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.237 · 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