Toward More Efficient Statistical Debugging with Abstraction Refinement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Debugging is known to be a notoriously painstaking and time-consuming task. As one major family of automated debugging, statistical debugging approaches have been well investigated over the past decade, which collect failing and passing executions and apply statistical techniques to identify discriminative elements as potential bug causes. Most of the existing approaches instrument the entire program to produce execution profiles for debugging, thus incurring hefty instrumentation and analysis cost. However, as in fact a major part of the program code is error-free, full-scale program instrumentation is wasteful and unnecessary. This article presents a systematic abstraction refinement-based pruning technique for statistical debugging. Our technique only needs to instrument and analyze the code partially. While guided by a mathematically rigorous analysis, our technique is guaranteed to produce the same debugging results as an exhaustive analysis in deterministic settings. With the help of the effective and safe pruning, our technique greatly saves the cost of failure diagnosis without sacrificing any debugging capability. We apply this technique to two different statistical debugging scenarios: in-house and production-run statistical debugging. The comprehensive evaluations validate that our technique can significantly improve the efficiency of statistical debugging in both scenarios, while without jeopardizing the debugging capability.
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 | 0.010 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".