MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226176814 · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_19

Automatic Repair for Network Programs

2022· book-chapter· en· W4226176814 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

VenueLecture notes in computer science · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDebuggingModular designReuseAbstractionSet (abstract data type)Domain (mathematical analysis)Symbolic executionTask (project management)Programming languageSoftwareSoftware engineeringDistributed computingEmbedded systemSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Debugging imperative network programs is a difficult task for operators as it requires understanding various network modules and complicated data structures. For this purpose, this paper presents an automated technique for repairing network programs with respect to unit tests. Given as input a faulty network program and a set of unit tests, our approach localizes the fault through symbolic reasoning, and synthesizes a patch ensuring that the repaired program passes all unit tests. It applies domain-specific abstraction to simplify network data structures and exploits function summary reuse for modular symbolic analysis. We have implemented the proposed techniques in a tool called NetRep and evaluated it on 10 benchmarks adapted from real-world software-defined network controllers. The evaluation results demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of NetRep for repairing network programs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.238 · 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