Understanding and Detecting Annotation-Induced Faults of Static Analyzers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Static analyzers can reason about the properties and behaviors of programs and detect various issues without executing them. Hence, they should extract the necessary information to understand the analyzed program well. Annotation has been a widely used feature for different purposes in Java since the introduction of Java 5. Annotations can change program structures and convey semantics information without awareness of static analyzers, consequently leading to imprecise analysis results. This paper presents the first comprehensive study of annotation-induced faults (AIF) by analyzing 246 issues in six open-source and popular static analyzers (i.e., PMD, SpotBugs, CheckStyle, Infer, SonarQube, and Soot). We analyzed the issues’ root causes, symptoms, and fix strategies and derived ten findings and some practical guidelines for detecting and repairing annotation-induced faults. Moreover, we developed an automated testing framework called AnnaTester based on three metamorphic relations originating from the findings. AnnaTester generated new tests based on the official test suites of static analyzers and unveiled 43 new faults, 20 of which have been fixed. The results confirm the value of our study and its findings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".