arXiv subjects

Mohammad Rezaalipour

Publications and source records attributed to Mohammad Rezaalipour.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2024

FauxPy: A Fault Localization Tool for Python

This paper presents FauxPy, a fault localization tool for Python programs. FauxPy supports seven well-known fault localization techniques in four families: spectrum-based, mutation-based, predicate switching, and stack trace fault localization. It is implemented as plugin of the popular Pytest testing framework, but also works with tests written for Unittest and Hypothesis (two other popular testing frameworks). The paper showcases how to use FauxPy on two illustrative examples, and then discusses its main features and capabilities from a user's perspective. To demonstrate that FauxPy is applicable to analyze Python projects of realistic size, the paper also summarizes the results of an extensive experimental evaluation that applied FauxPy to 135 real-world bugs from the BugsInPy curated collection. To our knowledge, FauxPy is the first open-source fault localization tool for Python that supports multiple fault localization families.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

An Empirical Study of Fault Localization in Python Programs

Despite its massive popularity as a programming language, especially in novel domains like data science programs, there is comparatively little research about fault localization that targets Python. Even though it is plausible that several findings about programming languages like C/C++ and Java -- the most common choices for fault localization research -- carry over to other languages, whether the dynamic nature of Python and how the language is used in practice affect the capabilities of classic fault localization approaches remain open questions to investigate. This paper is the first multi-family large-scale empirical study of fault localization on real-world Python programs and faults. Using Zou et al.'s recent large-scale empirical study of fault localization in Java as the basis of our study, we investigated the effectiveness (i.e., localization accuracy), efficiency (i.e., runtime performance), and other features (e.g., different entity granularities) of seven well-known fault-localization techniques in four families (spectrum-based, mutation-based, predicate switching, and stack-trace based) on 135 faults from 13 open-source Python projects from the BugsInPy curated collection. The results replicate for Python several results known about Java, and shed light on whether Python's peculiarities affect the capabilities of fault localization. The replication package that accompanies this paper includes detailed data about our experiments, as well as the tool FauxPy that we implemented to conduct the study.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2023

An Annotation-based Approach for Finding Bugs in Neural Network Programs

As neural networks are increasingly included as core components of safety-critical systems, developing effective testing techniques specialized for them becomes crucial. The bulk of the research has focused on testing neural-network models; but these models are defined by writing programs, and there is growing evidence that these neural-network programs often have bugs too. This paper presents aNNoTest: an approach to generating test inputs for neural-network programs. A fundamental challenge is that the dynamically-typed languages (e.g., Python) commonly used to program neural networks cannot express detailed constraints about valid function inputs (e.g., matrices with certain dimensions). Without knowing these constraints, automated test-case generation is prone to producing invalid inputs, which trigger spurious failures and are useless for identifying real bugs. To address this problem, we introduce a simple annotation language tailored for concisely expressing valid function inputs in neural-network programs. aNNoTest takes as input an annotated program, and uses property-based testing to generate random inputs that satisfy the validity constraints. In the paper, we also outline guidelines that simplify writing aNNoTest annotations. We evaluated aNNoTest on 19 neural-network programs from Islam et al's survey., which we manually annotated following our guidelines -- producing 6 annotations per tested function on average. aNNoTest automatically generated test inputs that revealed 94 bugs, including 63 bugs that the survey reported for these projects. These results suggest that aNNoTest can be a valuable approach to finding widespread bugs in real-world neural-network programs.

cs.SE↗