Ammonia: An Approach for Deriving Project Specific Bug Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finding and fixing buggy code is an important and cost-intensive maintenance task, and static analysis (SA) is one of the methods developers use to perform it. SA tools warn developers about potential bugs by scanning their source code for commonly occurring bug patterns, thus giving those developers opportunities to fix the warnings (potential bugs) before they release the software. Typically, SA tools scan for general bug patterns that are common to any software project (such as null pointer dereference), and not for project specific patterns. However, past research has pointed to this lack of customizability as a severe limiting issue in SA. Accordingly, in this paper, we propose an approach called Ammonia, which is based on statically analyzing changes across the development history of a project, as a means to identify project-specific bug patterns. Furthermore, the bug patterns identified by our tool do not relate to just one developer or one specific commit, they reflect the project as a whole and compliment the warnings from other SA tools that identify general bug patterns. Herein, we report on the application of our implemented tool and approach to four Java projects: Ant, Camel, POI, and Wicket. The results obtained show that our tool could detect 19 project specific bug patterns across those four projects. Next, through manual analysis, we determined that six of those change patterns were actual bugs and submitted pull requests based on those bug patterns. As a result, five of the pull requests were merged.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".