Fault localization in DSLTrans model transformations by combining symbolic execution and spectrum-based analysis
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
Abstract The verification of model transformations is important for realizing robust model-driven engineering technologies and quality-assured automation. Many approaches for checking properties of model transformations have been proposed. Most of them have focused on the effective and efficient detection of property violations by contract checking. However, there remains the fault localization step between identifying a failing contract for a transformation based on verification feedback and precisely identifying the faulty rules. While there exist fault localization approaches in the model transformation verification literature, these require the creation and maintenance of test cases , which imposes an additional burden on the developer. In this paper, we combine transformation verification based on symbolic execution with spectrum-based fault localization techniques for identifying the faulty rules in DSLTrans model transformations. This fault localization approach operates on the path condition output of symbolic transformation checkers instead of requiring a set of test input models. In particular, we introduce a workflow for running the symbolic execution of a model transformation, evaluating the defined contracts for satisfaction, and computing different measures for tracking the faulty rules. We evaluate the effectiveness of spectrum-based analysis techniques for tracking faulty rules and compare our approach to previous works. We evaluate our technique by introducing known mutations into five model transformations. Our results show that the best spectrum-based analysis techniques allow for effective fault localization, showing an average EXAM score below 0.30 (less than 30% of the transformation needs to be inspected). These techniques are also able to locate the faulty rule in the top-three ranked rules in 70% of all cases. The impact of the model transformation, the type of mutation and the type of contract on the results is discussed. Finally, we also investigate the cases where the technique does not work properly, including discussion of a potential pre-check to estimate the prospects of the technique for a certain transformation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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