arXiv subjects

Anil Koyuncu

Publications and source records attributed to Anil Koyuncu.

23 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2019

TBar: Revisiting Template-based Automated Program Repair

We revisit the performance of template-based APR to build comprehensive knowledge about the effectiveness of fix patterns, and to highlight the importance of complementary steps such as fault localization or donor code retrieval. To that end, we first investigate the literature to collect, summarize and label recurrently-used fix patterns. Based on the investigation, we build TBar, a straightforward APR tool that systematically attempts to apply these fix patterns to program bugs. We thoroughly evaluate TBar on the Defects4J benchmark. In particular, we assess the actual qualitative and quantitative diversity of fix patterns, as well as their effectiveness in yielding plausible or correct patches. Eventually, we find that, assuming a perfect fault localization, TBar correctly/plausibly fixes 74/101 bugs. Replicating a standard and practical pipeline of APR assessment, we demonstrate that TBar correctly fixes 43 bugs from Defects4J, an unprecedented performance in the literature (including all approaches, i.e., template-based, stochastic mutation-based or synthesis-based APR).

cs.SE↗

arXiv2019

AVATAR : Fixing Semantic Bugs with Fix Patterns of Static Analysis Violations

Fix pattern-based patch generation is a promising direction in Automated Program Repair (APR). Notably, it has been demonstrated to produce more acceptable and correct patches than the patches obtained with mutation operators through genetic programming. The performance of pattern-based APR systems, however, depends on the fix ingredients mined from fix changes in development histories. Unfortunately, collecting a reliable set of bug fixes in repositories can be challenging. In this paper, we propose to investigate the possibility in an APR scenario of leveraging code changes that address violations by static bug detection tools. To that end, we build the AVATAR APR system, which exploits fix patterns of static analysis violations as ingredients for patch generation. Evaluated on the Defects4J benchmark, we show that, assuming a perfect localization of faults, AVATAR can generate correct patches to fix 34/39 bugs. We further find that AVATAR yields performance metrics that are comparable to that of the closely-related approaches in the literature. While AVATAR outperforms many of the state-of-the-art pattern-based APR systems, it is mostly complementary to current approaches. Overall, our study highlights the relevance of static bug finding tools as indirect contributors of fix ingredients for addressing code defects identified with functional test cases.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2019

You Cannot Fix What You Cannot Find! An Investigation of Fault Localization Bias in Benchmarking Automated Program Repair Systems

Properly benchmarking Automated Program Repair (APR) systems should contribute to the development and adoption of the research outputs by practitioners. To that end, the research community must ensure that it reaches significant milestones by reliably comparing state-of-the-art tools for a better understanding of their strengths and weaknesses. In this work, we identify and investigate a practical bias caused by the fault localization (FL) step in a repair pipeline. We propose to highlight the different fault localization configurations used in the literature, and their impact on APR systems when applied to the Defects4J benchmark. Then, we explore the performance variations that can be achieved by `tweaking' the FL step. Eventually, we expect to create a new momentum for (1) full disclosure of APR experimental procedures with respect to FL, (2) realistic expectations of repairing bugs in Defects4J, as well as (3) reliable performance comparison among the state-of-the-art APR systems, and against the baseline performance results of our thoroughly assessed kPAR repair tool. Our main findings include: (a) only a subset of Defects4J bugs can be currently localized by commonly-used FL techniques; (b) current practice of comparing state-of-the-art APR systems (i.e., counting the number of fixed bugs) is potentially misleading due to the bias of FL configurations; and (c) APR authors do not properly qualify their performance achievement with respect to the different tuning parameters implemented in APR systems.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2019

D&C: A Divide-and-Conquer Approach to IR-based Bug Localization

Many automated tasks in software maintenance rely on information retrieval techniques to identify specific information within unstructured data. Bug localization is such a typical task, where text in a bug report is analyzed to identify file locations in the source code that can be associated to the reported bug. Despite the promising results, the performance offered by IR-based bug localization tools is still not significant for large adoption. We argue that one reason could be the attempt to build a one-size-fits-all approach. In this paper, we extensively study the performance of state-of-the-art bug localization tools, focusing on query formulation and its importance with respect to the localization performance. Building on insights from this study, we propose a new learning approach where multiple classifier models are trained on clear-cut sets of bug-location pairs. Concretely, we apply a gradient boosting supervised learning approach to various sets of bug reports whose localizations appear to be successful with specific types of features. The training scenario builds on our findings that the various state-of-the-art localization tools can be highly performant for specific sets of bug reports. We implement D&C, which computes appropriate weights that should be assigned to the similarity measurements between pairs of information token types. Experimental results on large and up-to-date datasets reveal that D&C outperforms state-of-the-art tools. On average, the experiments yield an MAP score of 0.52, and an MRR score of 0.63 with a curated dataset, which provides a substantial performance improvement over all tools: MAP is improved by between 4 and up to 10 percentage points, while MRR is improved by between 1 and up to 12. Finally, we note that D&C is stable in its localization performance: around 50% of bugs can be located at Top1, 77% at Top5 and 85% at Top10.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2018

Impact of Tool Support in Patch Construction

In this work, we investigate the practice of patch construction in the Linux kernel development, focusing on the differences between three patching processes: (1) patches crafted entirely manually to fix bugs, (2) those that are derived from warnings of bug detection tools, and (3) those that are automatically generated based on fix patterns. With this study, we provide to the research community concrete insights on the practice of patching as well as how the development community is currently embracing research and commercial patching tools to improve productivity in repair. The result of our study shows that tool-supported patches are increasingly adopted by the developer community while manually-written patches are accepted more quickly. Patch application tools enable developers to remain committed to contributing patches to the code base. Our findings also include that, in actual development processes, patches generally implement several change operations spread over the code, even for patches fixing warnings by bug detection tools. Finally, this study has shown that there is an opportunity to directly leverage the output of bug detection tools to readily generate patches that are appropriate for fixing the problem, and that are consistent with manually-written patches.

cs.SE↗