arXiv subjects

Reyhaneh Jabbarvand

Publications and source records attributed to Reyhaneh Jabbarvand.

23 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2024

WhiteFox: White-Box Compiler Fuzzing Empowered by Large Language Models

Compiler correctness is crucial, as miscompilation can falsify program behaviors, leading to serious consequences. Fuzzing has been studied to uncover compiler defects. However, compiler fuzzing remains challenging: Existing arts focus on black- and grey-box fuzzing, which generates tests without sufficient understanding of internal compiler behaviors. Meanwhile, traditional white-box techniques, like symbolic execution, are computationally inapplicable to the giant codebase of compilers. Recent advances demonstrate that Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in code generation/understanding tasks. Nonetheless, guiding LLMs with compiler source-code information remains a missing piece of research in compiler testing. To this end, we propose WhiteFox, the first white-box compiler fuzzer using LLMs with source-code information to test compiler optimization, with a spotlight on detecting deep logic bugs in the deep learning (DL) compilers. WhiteFox adopts a multi-agent framework: an LLM-based analysis agent examines the low-level optimization source code and produces requirements on the high-level test programs that can trigger the optimization; an LLM-based generation agent produces test programs based on the summarized requirements. Additionally, optimization-triggering tests are used as feedback to enhance the generation on the fly. Our evaluation on the three most popular DL compilers (i.e., PyTorch Inductor, TensorFlow-XLA, and TensorFlow Lite) shows WhiteFox can generate high-quality test programs to exercise deep optimizations, practicing up to 8X more than state-of-the-art fuzzers. WhiteFox has found 101 bugs for the DL compilers, with 92 confirmed as previously unknown and 70 fixed. WhiteFox has been acknowledged by the PyTorch team and is being incorporated into its development workflow. Beyond DL compilers, WhiteFox can also be adapted for compilers in different domains.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

A Generic Approach to Fix Test Flakiness in Real-World Projects

Test flakiness, a non-deterministic behavior of builds irrelevant to code changes, is a major and continuing impediment to delivering reliable software. The very few techniques for the automated repair of test flakiness are specifically crafted to repair either Order-Dependent (OD) or Implementation-Dependent (ID) flakiness. They are also all symbolic approaches, i.e., leverage program analysis to detect and repair known test flakiness patterns and root causes, failing to generalize. To bridge the gap, we propose FlakyDoctor, a neuro-symbolic technique that combines the power of LLMs-generalizability-and program analysis-soundness-to fix different types of test flakiness. Our extensive evaluation using 873 confirmed flaky tests (332 OD and 541 ID) from 243 real-world projects demonstrates the ability of FlakyDoctor in repairing flakiness, achieving 57% (OD) and 59% (ID) success rate. Comparing to three alternative flakiness repair approaches, FlakyDoctor can repair 8% more ID tests than DexFix, 12% more OD flaky tests than ODRepair, and 17% more OD flaky tests than iFixFlakies. Regardless of underlying LLM, the non-LLM components of FlakyDoctor contribute to 12-31% of the overall performance, i.e., while part of the FlakyDoctor power is from using LLMs, they are not good enough to repair flaky tests in real-world projects alone. What makes the proposed technique superior to related research on test flakiness mitigation specifically and program repair, in general, is repairing 79 previously unfixed flaky tests in real-world projects. We opened pull requests for all cases with corresponding patches; 19 of them were accepted and merged at the time of submission.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

LeTI: Learning to Generate from Textual Interactions

Fine-tuning pre-trained language models (LMs) is essential for enhancing their capabilities. Existing techniques commonly fine-tune on input-output pairs (e.g., instruction tuning) or with numerical rewards that gauge the output quality (e.g., RLHF). We explore LMs' potential to learn from textual interactions (LETI) that not only check their correctness with binary labels but also pinpoint and explain errors in their outputs through textual feedback. Our focus is the code generation task, where the model produces code based on natural language instructions. This setting invites a natural and scalable way to acquire textual feedback: the error messages and stack traces from code execution using a Python interpreter. LETI iteratively fine-tunes the model, using the LM objective, on a concatenation of natural language instructions, LM-generated programs, and textual feedback. Prepended to this fine-tuning text, a binary reward token is used to differentiate correct and buggy solutions. LETI requires no ground-truth outputs for training and even outperforms a fine-tuned baseline that does. LETI not only improves the performance of LMs on a code generation dataset MBPP, but also generalizes to other datasets. Trained on MBPP, it achieves comparable or better performance than the base LMs on unseen problems in HumanEval. Furthermore, compared to binary feedback, we observe that textual feedback leads to improved generation quality and sample efficiency, achieving the same performance with fewer than half of the gradient steps. LETI is equally applicable in natural language tasks when they can be formulated as code generation, which we empirically verified on event argument extraction.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Lost in Translation: A Study of Bugs Introduced by Large Language Models while Translating Code

Code translation aims to convert source code from one programming language (PL) to another. Given the promising abilities of large language models (LLMs) in code synthesis, researchers are exploring their potential to automate code translation. The prerequisite for advancing the state of LLM-based code translation is to understand their promises and limitations over existing techniques. To that end, we present a large-scale empirical study to investigate the ability of general LLMs and code LLMs for code translation across pairs of different languages, including C, C++, Go, Java, and Python. Our study, which involves the translation of 1,700 code samples from three benchmarks and two real-world projects, reveals that LLMs are yet to be reliably used to automate code translation -- with correct translations ranging from 2.1% to 47.3% for the studied LLMs. Further manual investigation of unsuccessful translations identifies 15 categories of translation bugs. We also compare LLM-based code translation with traditional non-LLM-based approaches. Our analysis shows that these two classes of techniques have their own strengths and weaknesses. Finally, insights from our study suggest that providing more context to LLMs during translation can help them produce better results. To that end, we propose a prompt-crafting approach based on the symptoms of erroneous translations; this improves the performance of LLM-based code translation by 5.5% on average. Our study is the first of its kind, in terms of scale and breadth, that provides insights into the current limitations of LLMs in code translation and opportunities for improving them. Our dataset -- consisting of 1,700 code samples in five PLs with 10K+ tests, 43K+ translated code, 1,748 manually labeled bugs, and 1,365 bug-fix pairs -- can help drive research in this area.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2023

Perfect is the enemy of test oracle

Automation of test oracles is one of the most challenging facets of software testing, but remains comparatively less addressed compared to automated test input generation. Test oracles rely on a ground-truth that can distinguish between the correct and buggy behavior to determine whether a test fails (detects a bug) or passes. What makes the oracle problem challenging and undecidable is the assumption that the ground-truth should know the exact expected, correct, or buggy behavior. However, we argue that one can still build an accurate oracle without knowing the exact correct or buggy behavior, but how these two might differ. This paper presents SEER, a learning-based approach that in the absence of test assertions or other types of oracle, can determine whether a unit test passes or fails on a given method under test (MUT). To build the ground-truth, SEER jointly embeds unit tests and the implementation of MUTs into a unified vector space, in such a way that the neural representation of tests are similar to that of MUTs they pass on them, but dissimilar to MUTs they fail on them. The classifier built on top of this vector representation serves as the oracle to generate "fail" labels, when test inputs detect a bug in MUT or "pass" labels, otherwise. Our extensive experiments on applying SEER to more than 5K unit tests from a diverse set of open-source Java projects show that the produced oracle is (1) effective in predicting the fail or pass labels, achieving an overall accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 measure of 93%, 86%, 94%, and 90%, (2) generalizable, predicting the labels for the unit test of projects that were not in training or validation set with negligible performance drop, and (3) efficient, detecting the existence of bugs in only 6.5 milliseconds on average.

cs.SE↗