MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415007091 · doi:10.1145/3763053

Boosting Program Reduction with the Missing Piece of Syntax-Guided Transformations

2025· article· en· W4415007091 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhenyang Xu, Yongqiang Tian, Mengxiao Zhang, C. P. Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDebuggingReduction (mathematics)Boosting (machine learning)Leverage (statistics)Program analysisProgram transformationKey (lock)Abstract syntax treeMinification

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Program reduction is a widely used technique in testing and debugging language processors. Given a program that triggers a bug in a language processor, program reduction searches for a canonicalized and minimized program that triggers the same bug, thereby facilitating bug deduplication and simplifying the debugging process. To improve reduction performance without sacrificing generality, prior research has leveraged the formal syntax of the programming language as guidance. Two key syntax-guided transformations—Compatible Substructure Hoisting and Quantified Node Reduction—were introduced to enhance this process. While these transformations have proven effective to some extent, their application excessively prunes the search space, preventing the discovery of many smaller results. Consequently, there remains significant potential for further improvement in overall reduction performance. To this end, we propose a novel syntax-guided transformation named Structure Form Conversion (SFC) to complement the aforementioned two transformations. Building on SFC, we introduce three reduction methods: Smaller Structure Replacement, Identifier Elimination, and Structure Canonicalization, designed to effectively and efficiently leverage SFC for program reduction. By integrating these reduction methods to previous language-agnostic program reducers, Perses and Vulcan, we implement two prototypes named SFC Perses and SFC Vulcan . Extensive evaluations show that SFC Perses and SFC Vulcan significantly outperforms Perses and Vulcan in both minimization and canonicalization. Specifically, compared to Perses, SFC Perses produces programs that are 36.82%, 18.71%, and 41.05% smaller on average on the C, Rust, and SMT-LIBv2 benchmarks at the cost of 3.65×, 16.99×, and 1.42× the time of Perses, respectively. Similarly, SFC Vulcan generates programs that are 14.51%, 7.65%, and 7.66% smaller than those produced by Vulcan at the cost of 1.56×, 2.35×, and 1.42× the execution time of Vulcan. Furthermore, in an experiment with a benchmark suite containing 3,796 C programs that trigger 46 unique bugs, SFC Perses and SFC Vulcan reduce 442 and 435 more duplicates (programs that trigger the same bug) to identical programs than Perses and Vulcan, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Programming LanguagesSame topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207