arXiv subjects

Caroline Lemieux

Publications and source records attributed to Caroline Lemieux.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

DocPrism: Multi-lingual Detection of Incorrectness Inconsistencies between Code and Documentation

Code-documentation inconsistencies are common and undesirable: they can lead to developer misunderstandings and software defects. This paper introduces DocPrism, a lightweight multi-language, code-documentation inconsistency detection tool. DocPrism uses a standard large language model (LLM) to analyze and explain inconsistencies, and focuses on outputting incorrectness inconsistencies. Plain use of LLMs for this task yields unacceptably high inconsistency flag rates-i.e., over 90% of functions are flagged as inconsistent with their documentation. One substantial reason is that LLMs identify natural gaps between high-level documentation and code as incompleteness inconsistencies. We introduce and apply the Local Categorization, External Filtering (LCEF) methodology: LCEF uses an LLM's local completion skills, rather than its long-term reasoning skills, to focus on reporting incorrectness inconsistencies. In our ablation study, LCEF reduces DocPrism's inconsistency flag rate from 98% to 14%, and increases F1 score from 0.22 to 0.77, compared to standard prompting techniques. On a broad evaluation across Python, TypeScript, C++, and Java, DocPrism maintains a low flag rate of 17%, and achieves a precision of 0.63 without performing any fine-tuning. We also establish a conservative lower bound across four programming languages, showing that inconsistency errors are present in 11% of code-documentation pairs. In addition, DocPrism achieves precision comparable to the state-of-the-art on an established synthetic dataset, but substantially outperforms it on our real-world Java dataset in precision (DocPrism: 0.47-0.67 vs. SOTA: 0.05-0.14).

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Can Large Language Models Write Good Property-Based Tests?

Property-based testing (PBT), while an established technique in the software testing research community, is still relatively underused in real-world software. Pain points in writing property-based tests include implementing diverse random input generators and thinking of meaningful properties to test. Developers, however, are more amenable to writing documentation; plenty of library API documentation is available and can be used as natural language specifications for PBTs. As large language models (LLMs) have recently shown promise in a variety of coding tasks, we investigate using modern LLMs to automatically synthesize PBTs using two prompting techniques. A key challenge is to rigorously evaluate the LLM-synthesized PBTs. We propose a methodology to do so considering several properties of the generated tests: (1) validity, (2) soundness, and (3) property coverage, a novel metric that measures the ability of the PBT to detect property violations through generation of property mutants. In our evaluation on 40 Python library API methods across three models (GPT-4, Gemini-1.5-Pro, Claude-3-Opus), we find that with the best model and prompting approach, a valid and sound PBT can be synthesized in 2.4 samples on average. We additionally find that our metric for determining soundness of a PBT is aligned with human judgment of property assertions, achieving a precision of 100% and recall of 97%. Finally, we evaluate the property coverage of LLMs across all API methods and find that the best model (GPT-4) is able to automatically synthesize correct PBTs for 21% of properties extractable from API documentation.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2021

Learning Highly Recursive Input Grammars

This paper presents Arvada, an algorithm for learning context-free grammars from a set of positive examples and a Boolean-valued oracle. Arvada learns a context-free grammar by building parse trees from the positive examples. Starting from initially flat trees, Arvada builds structure to these trees with a key operation: it bubbles sequences of sibling nodes in the trees into a new node, adding a layer of indirection to the tree. Bubbling operations enable recursive generalization in the learned grammar. We evaluate Arvada against GLADE and find it achieves on average increases of 4.98x in recall and 3.13x in F1 score, while incurring only a 1.27x slowdown and requiring only 0.87x as many calls to the oracle. Arvada has a particularly marked improvement over GLADE on grammars with highly recursive structure, like those of programming languages.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2019

Semantic Fuzzing with Zest

Programs expecting structured inputs often consist of both a syntactic analysis stage, which parses raw input, and a semantic analysis stage, which conducts checks on the parsed input and executes the core logic of the program. Generator-based testing tools in the lineage of QuickCheck are a promising way to generate random syntactically valid test inputs for these programs. We present Zest, a technique which automatically guides QuickCheck-like randominput generators to better explore the semantic analysis stage of test programs. Zest converts random-input generators into deterministic parametric generators. We present the key insight that mutations in the untyped parameter domain map to structural mutations in the input domain. Zest leverages program feedback in the form of code coverage and input validity to perform feedback-directed parameter search. We evaluate Zest against AFL and QuickCheck on five Java programs: Maven, Ant, BCEL, Closure, and Rhino. Zest covers 1.03x-2.81x as many branches within the benchmarks semantic analysis stages as baseline techniques. Further, we find 10 new bugs in the semantic analysis stages of these benchmarks. Zest is the most effective technique in finding these bugs reliably and quickly, requiring at most 10 minutes on average to find each bug.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2017

FairFuzz: Targeting Rare Branches to Rapidly Increase Greybox Fuzz Testing Coverage

In recent years, fuzz testing has proven itself to be one of the most effective techniques for finding correctness bugs and security vulnerabilities in practice. One particular fuzz testing tool, American Fuzzy Lop or AFL, has become popular thanks to its ease-of-use and bug-finding power. However, AFL remains limited in the depth of program coverage it achieves, in particular because it does not consider which parts of program inputs should not be mutated in order to maintain deep program coverage. We propose an approach, FairFuzz, that helps alleviate this limitation in two key steps. First, FairFuzz automatically prioritizes inputs exercising rare parts of the program under test. Second, it automatically adjusts the mutation of inputs so that the mutated inputs are more likely to exercise these same rare parts of the program. We conduct evaluation on real-world programs against state-of-the-art versions of AFL, thoroughly repeating experiments to get good measures of variability. We find that on certain benchmarks FairFuzz shows significant coverage increases after 24 hours compared to state-of-the-art versions of AFL, while on others it achieves high program coverage at a significantly faster rate.

cs.SE↗