-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
/
soft-eng.bib
2489 lines (1894 loc) · 92.2 KB
/
soft-eng.bib
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
% Software engineering bibliography
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Maintenance
%%%
@Article{Putnam78,
author = "Lawrence H. Putnam",
title = "A general empirical solution to the macro software sizing
and estimating problem",
journal = TSE,
year = 1978,
volume = 4,
number = 4,
pages = "345--361",
month = jul
}
@Article{BalzerCG83,
author = "R. Balzer and T. E. Cheatham, Jr. and C. Green",
title = "Software technology in the 1990's: Using a new paradigm",
journal = "Computer",
year = 1983,
volume = 16,
number = 11,
pages = "39--45",
month = nov
}
@Article{Boehm87:top10,
author = "Barry W. Boehm",
title = "Industrial software metrics top 10 list",
journal = IEEESoftware,
year = 1987,
volume = 4,
number = 5,
pages = "84--85",
month = sep
}
@Article{Erlikh2000,
author = "Erlikh, Len",
title = "Leveraging legacy system dollars for e-business",
journal = "IT Professional",
year = 2000,
volume = 2,
number = 3,
pages = "17--23",
month = may,
}
@Article{Eastwood1993,
author = "A. Eastwood",
title = "Firm fires shots at legacy systems",
journal = "Computing Canada",
year = 1993,
volume = 19,
number = 2,
pages = 17,
}
@Article{Moad1990,
author = "J. Moad",
title = "Maintaining the competitive edge",
journal = "DATAMATION",
year = 1990,
pages = "61--66",
month = feb,
}
@Article{LientzS1981,
author = "Lientz, Bennet P. and Swanson, E. Burton",
title = "Problems in application software maintenance",
journal = CACM,
year = 1981,
volume = 24,
number = 11,
pages = "763--769",
month = nov,
}
@Book{ZelkowitzSG1979,
author = "Zelkowitz, Marvin V. and Shaw, Alan C. and Gannon, John D.",
title = "Principles of Software Engineering and Design",
publisher = "Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference",
year = 1979,
}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Refactoring
%%%
@TechReport{Griswold91,
author = "William G. Griswold",
title = "Program Restructuring To Aid Software Maintenance",
institution = UWCSE,
year = 1991,
number = "91-08-04",
address = UWCSEaddr,
month = aug,
note = "PhD dissertation"
}
@TechReport{Opdyke92,
author = "W. F. Opdyke",
title = "Refactoring: A Program Restructuring Aid in Designing
Object-Oriented Applications Frameworks",
institution = "University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Dept. of Computer Science",
year = 1992,
number = 1759,
note = "PhD dissertation"
}
@book{Fowler2000,
title = {Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code},
author = {Martin Fowler},
publisher = {Addison-Wesley},
year = {2000}
}
@InProceedings{Parr94,
author = "Terence J. Parr",
title = "An overview of {SORCERER}: A simple tree-parser generator",
crossref = "CC94",
NEEDpages = "",
}
@Article{MensT2004,
author = "Tom Mens and Tom Tourw{\'e}",
authorASCII = "Tom Mens and Tom Tourwe",
title = "A survey of software refactoring",
journal = TSE,
year = 2004,
volume = 30,
number = 2,
pages = "126--139",
month = feb
}
@InProceedings{StreckenbachS2004,
author = "Mirko Streckenbach and Gregor Snelting",
title = "Refactoring class hierarchies with {KABA}",
crossref = "OOPSLA2004",
pages = "315--330",
}
@InProceedings{HenkelD2005,
author = "Johannes Henkel and Amer Diwan",
title = "CatchUp! Capturing and replaying refactorings to support
{API} evolution",
crossref = "ICSE2005",
pages = "274--283",
abstract =
"Library developers who have to evolve a library to accommodate changing
requirements often face a dilemma: Either they implement a clean, efficient
solution but risk breaking client code, or they maintain compatibility with
client code, but pay with increased design complexity and thus higher
maintenance costs over time.
\par
We address this dilemma by presenting a lightweight approach for evolving
application programming interfaces (APIs), which does not depend on version
control or configuration management systems. Instead, we capture API
actions as a developer evolves an API. Users of the API can then replay the
refactorings to bring their client software components up to date.
\par
We present CatchUp!, an implementation of our approach that captures and
replays refactoring actions within an integrated development environment
semi-automatically. Our experiments suggest that our approach could be
valuable in practice.",
}
@InProceedings{MurphyHillPB2009,
author = "Murphy-Hill, Emerson and Parnin, Chris and Black, Andrew P.",
title = "How we refactor, and how we know it",
crossref = "ICSE2009",
pages = "287--297",
abstract =
"Much of what we know about how programmers refactor in the wild is
based on studies that examine just a few software projects. Researchers
have rarely taken the time to replicate these studies in other contexts
or to examine the assumptions on which they are based. To help put
refactoring research on a sound scientific basis, we draw conclusions
using four data sets spanning more than 13 000 developers, 240 000
tool-assisted refactorings, 2500 developer hours, and 3400 version
control commits. Using these data, we cast doubt on several previously
stated assumptions about how programmers refactor, while validating
others. For example, we find that programmers frequently do not indicate
refactoring activity in commit logs, which contradicts assumptions made
by several previous researchers. In contrast, we were able to confirm
the assumption that programmers do frequently intersperse refactoring
with other program changes. By confirming assumptions and replicating
studies made by other researchers, we can have greater confidence that
those researchers' conclusions are generalizable.",
}
@InProceedings{KashiwaSLBLKU2021,
author = "Kashiwa, Yutaro and Shimizu, Kazuki and Lin, Bin and Bavota, Gabriele and Lanza, Michele and Kamei, Yasutaka and Ubayashi, Naoyasu",
title = "Does Refactoring Break Tests and to What Extent?",
crossref = "ICSME2021",
pages = "171-182",
}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Programmer productivity: lines of code per day
%%%
@Book{McConnell2006,
author = "Steve McConnell",
title = "Software Estimation: Demystifying the Black Art",
publisher = "Microsoft Press",
year = 2006,
}
@Book{Jones2011,
author = "Capers Jones",
title = "The Economics of Software Quality",
publisher = "Addison-Wesley",
year = 2011,
}
@Misc{Su2006,
author = "Philip Su",
title = "Broken {Windows} Theory",
howpublished = "\url{http://blogs.msdn.com/b/philipsu/archive/2006/06/14/631438.aspx}",
month = jun,
year = 2006,
}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Experimental methodology
%%%
@Article{HostRW2000,
author = "H{\"o}st, Martin and Regnell, Bj{\"o}rn and Wohlin, Claes",
authorASCII = "Host, Martin and Regnell, Bjorn and Wohlin, Claes",
title = "Using Students As Subjects---A Comparative Study of Students and Professionals in Lead-Time Impact Assessment",
journal = JEmpiricalSE,
year = 2000,
volume = 5,
number = 3,
pages = "201--214",
month = nov,
abstract =
"In many studies in software engineering students are used instead of
professional software developers, although the objective is to draw
conclusions valid for professional software developers. This paper presents
a study where the difference between the two groups is evaluated. People
from the two groups have individually carried out a non-trivial software
engineering judgement task involving the assessment of how ten different
factors affect the lead-time of software development projects. It is found
that the differences are only minor, and it is concluded that software
engineering students may be used instead of professional software
developers under certain conditions. These conditions are identified and
described based on generally accepted criteria for validity evaluation of
empirical studies.",
}
@InProceedings{Runeson2003,
author = "Runeson, Per",
title = "Using students as experiment subjects -- An analysis on graduate and freshmen student data",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering",
year = 2003,
pages = "95-102",
month = apr # "~8--10,",
address = "Keele, UK",
abstract =
"The question whether students can be used as subjects in
software engineering experiments is debated. In order to
investigate the feasibility of using students as subjects, a
study is conducted in the context of the Personal Software
Process (PSP) in which the performance of freshmen students
and graduate students are compared and also related
to another study in an industrial setting. The hypothesis is
that graduate students perform similarly to industry personnel,
while freshmen student's performance differ. A
quantitative analysis compares the freshmen' and graduate
students. The improvement trends are also compared to
industry data, although limited data access does not allow a
full comparison. It can be concluded that very much the
same improvement trends can be identified for the three
groups. However, the dispersion is larger in the freshmen
group. The absolute levels of the measured characteristics
are significantly different between the student groups primarily
with respect to time, i.e. graduate students do the
tasks in shorter time. The data does not give a sufficient
answer to the hypothesis, but is a basis for further studies
on the issue.",
}
@InProceedings{SalmanTMJ2015,
author = "Iflaah Salman and Ay{\c{s}}e {Tosun Misirli} and Natalia Juristo",
authorASCII = "Iflaah Salman and Ayse Tosun Misirli and Natalia Juristo",
title = "Are Students Representatives of Professionals in Software Engineering Experiments?",
crossref = "ICSE2015",
pages = "666-676",
}
@Article{Kitchenham:2009:SLR:1465742.1466091,
author = "Kitchenham, Barbara and O. Pearl Brereton and Budgen, David and Turner, Mark and Bailey, John and Linkman, Stephen",
title = "Systematic literature reviews in software engineering -- A systematic literature review",
journal = "Inf. Softw. Technol.",
year = 2009,
volume = 51,
number = 1,
pages = "7--15",
month = jan,
}
@article{Kitchenham:2010:SLR:1808352.1808650,
author = {Kitchenham, Barbara and Pretorius, Rialette and Budgen, David and Pearl Brereton, O. and Turner, Mark and Niazi, Mahmood and Linkman, Stephen},
title = {Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering - A Tertiary Study},
journal = {Inf. Softw. Technol.},
issue_date = {August, 2010},
volume = {52},
number = {8},
month = aug,
year = {2010},
issn = {0950-5849},
pages = {792--805},
numpages = {14},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.03.006},
doi = {10.1016/j.infsof.2010.03.006},
acmid = {1808650},
publisher = {Butterworth-Heinemann},
address = {Newton, MA, USA},
keywords = {Mapping study, Software engineering, Systematic literature review, Tertiary study},
}
@inproceedings{Devanbu:2016:BEE:2884781.2884812,
author = {Devanbu, Prem and Zimmermann, Thomas and Bird, Christian},
title = {Belief \& Evidence in Empirical Software Engineering},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering},
series = {ICSE '16},
year = {2016},
isbn = {978-1-4503-3900-1},
address = {Austin, Texas},
pages = {108--119},
numpages = {12},
url = {https://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2884781.2884812},
doi = {10.1145/2884781.2884812},
acmid = {2884812},
}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Defect prediction (fault prediction)
%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Fault localization
%%%
@InProceedings{JonesH2005,
author = "James A. Jones and Mary Jean Harrold",
title = "Empirical evaluation of the {Tarantula} automatic fault-localization technique",
crossref = "ASE2005",
pages = "273--282",
}
@InProceedings{ParninO2011,
author = "Parnin, Chris and Orso, Alessandro",
title = "Are automated debugging techniques actually helping programmers?",
crossref = "ISSTA2011",
pages = "199--209",
}
@InProceedings{RenierisR2003,
author = "Manos Renieris and Steven P. Reiss",
title = "Fault localization with nearest neighbor queries",
crossref = "ASE2003",
pages = "30--39",
}
@InProceedings{SteimannFA2013,
author = "Steimann, Friedrich and Frenkel, Marcus and Abreu, Rui",
title = "Threats to the validity and value of empirical assessments of the accuracy of coverage-based fault locators",
crossref = "ISSTA2013",
pages = "314--324",
}
@InProceedings{ZhangZK2013,
author = "Zhang, Lingming and Zhang, Lu and Khurshid, Sarfraz",
title = "Injecting mechanical faults to localize developer faults for evolving software",
crossref = "OOPSLA2013",
pages = "765--784",
}
@InProceedings{JonesHS2002,
author = "Jones, James A. and Harrold, Mary Jean and Stasko, John",
title = "Visualization of test information to assist fault localization",
crossref = "ICSE2002",
pages = "467--477",
}
@Unpublished{YooNH2011,
author = "Yoo, Shin and Nilsson, Robert and Harman, Mark",
title = "Faster fault finding at {Google} using multi objective regression test optimisation",
note = "Unpublished paper accompanying industrial track talk at ESEC/FSE 2011",
month = sep,
year = 2011,
}
@Article{DiGiuseppeJ2015,
author = "DiGiuseppe, Nicholas and Jones, James A.",
title = "Fault Density, Fault Types, and Spectra-based Fault Localization",
journal = JEmpiricalSE,
year = 2015,
volume = 20,
number = 4,
pages = "928--967",
month = aug,
}
@InProceedings{KochharXLL2016,
author = "Kochhar, Pavneet Singh and Xia, Xin and Lo, David and Li, Shanping",
title = "Practitioners' expectations on automated fault localization",
crossref = "ISSTA2016",
pages = "165--176",
}
@InProceedings{LongR2016:ICSE,
author = "Long, Fan and Rinard, Martin",
title = "An analysis of the search spaces for generate and validate patch generation systems",
crossref = "ICSE2016",
pages = "702--713",
}
@InProceedings{WongWQZ2008,
author = "Wong, Eric and Wei, Tingting and Qi, Yu and Zhao, Lei",
title = "A crosstab-based statistical method for effective fault localization",
crossref = "ICST2008",
pages = "42-51",
}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Automated program repair (APR)
%%%
@InProceedings{LeGouesDVFW2012,
author = "Le Goues, Claire and Dewey-Vogt, Michael and Forrest, Stephanie and Weimer, Westley",
title = "A systematic study of automated program repair: fixing 55 out of 105 bugs for \$8 each",
crossref = "ICSE2012",
pages = "3--13",
abstract =
"There are more bugs in real-world programs than human programmers can
realistically address. This paper evaluates two research questions: ``What
fraction of bugs can be repaired automatically?'' and ``How much does it
cost to repair a bug automatically?'' In previous work, we presented
GenProg, which uses genetic programming to repair defects in off-the-shelf
C programs. To answer these questions, we: (1) propose novel algorithmic
improvements to GenProg that allow it to scale to large programs and find
repairs 68\% more often, (2) exploit GenProg's inherent parallelism using
cloud computing resources to provide grounded, human-competitive cost
measurements, and (3) generate a large, indicative benchmark set to use for
systematic evaluations. We evaluate GenProg on 105 defects from 8
open-source programs totaling 5.1 million lines of code and involving
10,193 test cases. GenProg automatically repairs 55 of those 105
defects. To our knowledge, this evaluation is the largest available of its
kind, and is often two orders of magnitude larger than previous work in
terms of code or test suite size or defect count. Public cloud computing
prices allow our 105 runs to be reproduced for \$403; a successful repair
completes in 96 minutes and costs \$7.32, on average.",
}
@InProceedings{QiLAR2015,
author = "Qi, Zichao and Long, Fan and Achour, Sara and Rinard, Martin",
title = "An analysis of patch plausibility and correctness for generate-and-validate patch generation systems",
crossref = "ISSTA2015",
pages = "24--36",
doi = {10.1145/2771783.2771791},
}
@InProceedings{TianR2017,
author = "Tian, Yuchi and Ray, Baishakhi",
title = "Automatically diagnosing and repairing error handling bugs in {C}",
crossref = "FSE2017",
year = 2017,
pages = "752--762",
}
@Article{Motwani2017,
author="Motwani, Manish
and Sankaranarayanan, Sandhya
and Just, Ren{\'e}
and Brun, Yuriy",
title="Do automated program repair techniques repair hard and important bugs?",
journal=JEmpiricalSE,
year="2017",
month="Nov",
day="18",
abstract="Existing evaluations of automated repair techniques focus on the fraction of the defects for which the technique can produce a patch, the time needed to produce patches, and how well patches generalize to the intended specification. However, these evaluations have not focused on the applicability of repair techniques and the characteristics of the defects that these techniques can repair. Questions such as ``Can automated repair techniques repair defects that are hard for developers to repair?'' and ``Are automated repair techniques less likely to repair defects that involve loops?'' have not, as of yet, been answered. To address such questions, we annotate two large benchmarks totaling 409 C and Java defects in real-world software, ranging from 22K to 2.8M lines of code, with measures of the defect's importance, the developer-written patch's complexity, and the quality of the test suite. We then analyze relationships between these measures and the ability to produce patches for the defects of seven automated repair techniques ---AE, GenProg, Kali, Nopol, Prophet, SPR, and TrpAutoRepair. We find that automated repair techniques are less likely to produce patches for defects that required developers to write a lot of code or edit many files, or that have many tests relevant to the defect. Java techniques are more likely to produce patches for high-priority defects. Neither the time it took developers to fix a defect nor the test suite's coverage correlate with the automated repair techniques' ability to produce patches. Finally, automated repair techniques are less capable of fixing defects that require developers to add loops and new function calls, or to change method signatures. These findings identify strengths and shortcomings of the state-of-the-art of automated program repair along new dimensions. The presented methodology can drive research toward improving the applicability of automated repair techniques to hard and important bugs.",
issn="1573-7616",
doi="10.1007/s10664-017-9550-0",
url="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-017-9550-0"
}
@inproceedings{vanTonder:2018:SAP:3180155.3180250,
author = {van Tonder, Rijnard and Goues, Claire Le},
title = {Static Automated Program Repair for Heap Properties},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering},
series = {ICSE '18},
year = {2018},
isbn = {978-1-4503-5638-1},
location = {Gothenburg, Sweden},
pages = {151--162},
numpages = {12},
url = {https://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3180155.3180250},
doi = {10.1145/3180155.3180250},
acmid = {3180250},
publisher = {ACM},
address = {New York, NY, USA},
keywords = {automated program repair, separation logic},
}
@Article{AletiM2021,
author = "Aleti, Aldeida and Martinez, Matias",
title = "{E-APR}: Mapping the effectiveness of automated program repair techniques",
journal = JEmpiricalSE,
year = 2021,
volume = 26,
number = 99,
NEEDpages = "*",
month = jul,
abstract =
"Automated Program Repair (APR) is a fast growing area with numerous new
techniques being developed to tackle one of the most challenging software
engineering problems. APR techniques have shown promising results, giving
us hope that one day it will be possible for software to repair itself. In
this paper, we focus on the problem of objective performance evaluation of
APR techniques. We introduce a new approach, Explaining Automated Program
Repair (E-APR), which identifies features of buggy programs that explain
why a particular instance is difficult for an APR technique. E-APR is used
to examine the diversity and quality of the buggy programs used by most
researchers, and analyse the strengths and weaknesses of existing APR
techniques. E-APR visualises an instance space of buggy programs, with each
buggy program represented as a point in the space. The instance space is
constructed to reveal areas of hard and easy buggy programs, and enables
the strengths and weaknesses of APR techniques to be identified.",
}
@INPROCEEDINGS{tan2015relifix,
author={Tan, Shin Hwei and Roychoudhury, Abhik},
booktitle={2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering},
title={relifix: Automated Repair of Software Regressions},
year={2015},
volume={1},
number={},
pages={471-482},
doi={10.1109/ICSE.2015.65}}
@Article{KirbasWMKPSVWCBHHW2021,
author = "Kirbas, Serkan and Windels, Etienne and McBello, Olayori and Kells, Kevin and Pagano, Matthew and Szalanski, Rafal and Nowack, Vesna and Winter, Emily Rowan and Counsell, Steve and Bowes, David and Hall, Tracy and Haraldsson, Saemundur and Woodward, John",
title = "On the introduction of automatic program repair in {Bloomberg}",
journal = IEEESoftware,
year = 2021,
volume = 38,
number = 4,
pages = "43-51",
month = jul # "-" # aug,
}
@InProceedings{EldawyLGB2023,
author = "Hadeel Eladawy and Claire {Le Goues} and Yuriy Brun",
title = "Automated program repair, what is it good for? Not absolutely nothing!",
crossref = "ICSE2024",
NEEDpages = "*",
}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Clone detection and code similarity
%%%
@InProceedings{BasitRJ2005,
author = "Hamid Abdul Basit and Damith C. Rajapakse and Stan Jarzabek",
title = "Beyond templates: A study of clones in the {STL} and some
general implications",
crossref = "ICSE2005",
pages = "451--459",
abstract =
"Templates (or generics) help us write compact, generic code, which aids
both reuse and maintenance. The STL is a powerful example of how templates
help achieve these goals. Still, our study of the STL revealed substantial,
and in our opinion, counter-productive repetitions (so-called clones)
across groups of similar class or function templates. Clones occurred, as
variations across these similar program structures were irregular and could
not be unified by suitable template parameters in a natural way. We
encountered similar problems in other class libraries as well as in
application programs, written in a range of programming languages. In the
paper, we present quantitative and qualitative results from our study. We
argue that the difficulties we encountered affect programs in general. We
present a solution that can treat such template-unfriendly cases of
redundancies at the meta-level, complementing and extending the power of
language features, such as templates, in areas of generic programming.",
}
@InProceedings{BasitJ2005,
author = "Hamid Abdul Basit and Stan Jarzabek",
title = "Detecting higher-level similarity patterns in programs",
crossref = "FSE2005",
pages = "156--165",
abstract =
"Cloning in software systems is known to create problems during software
maintenance. Several techniques have been proposed to detect the same or
similar code fragments in software, so-called simple clones. While the
knowledge of simple clones is useful, detecting design-level similarities
in software could ease maintenance even further, and also help us identify
reuse opportunities. We observed that recurring patterns of simple clones -
so-called structural clones - often indicate the presence of interesting
design-level similarities. An example would be patterns of collaborating
classes or components. Finding structural clones that signify potentially
useful design information requires efficient techniques to analyze the bulk
of simple clone data and making non-trivial inferences based on the
abstracted information. In this paper, we describe a practical solution to
the problem of detecting some basic, but useful, types of design-level
similarities such as groups of highly similar classes or files. First, we
detect simple clones by applying conventional token-based techniques. Then
we find the patterns of co-occurring clones in different files using the
Frequent Itemset Mining (FIM) technique. Finally, we perform file
clustering to detect those clusters of highly similar files that are likely
to contribute to a design-level similarity pattern. The novelty of our
approach is application of data mining techniques to detect design level
similarities. Experiments confirmed that our method finds many useful
structural clones and scales up to big programs. The paper describes our
method for structural clone detection, a prototype tool called Clone Miner
that implements the method and experimental results."
}
@InProceedings{KimSNM2005,
author = "Miryung Kim and Vibha Sazawal and David Notkin
and Gail C. Murphy",
title = "An empirical study of code clone genealogies",
crossref = "FSE2005",
pages = "187--196",
abstract =
"It has been broadly assumed that code clones are inherently bad and that
eliminating clones by refactoring would solve the problems of code
clones. To investigate the validity of this assumption, we developed a
formal definition of clone evolution and built a clone genealogy tool that
automatically extracts the history of code clones from a source code
repository. Using our tool we extracted clone genealogy information for two
Java open source projects and analyzed their evolution.
\par
Our study contradicts some conventional wisdom about clones. In particular,
refactoring may not always improve software with respect to clones for two
reasons. First, many code clones exist in the system for only a short time;
extensive refactoring of such short-lived clones may not be worthwhile if
they are likely diverge from one another very soon. Second, many clones,
especially long-lived clones that have changed consistently with other
elements in the same group, are not easily refactorable due to programming
language limitations. These insights show that refactoring will not help in
dealing with some types of clones and open up opportunities for
complementary clone maintenance tools that target these other classes of
clones.",
}
@inproceedings{JB10,
Author = {Kevin Jalbert and Jeremy S. Bradbury},
Title = {Using Clone Detection to Identify Bugs in Concurrent Software},
Booktitle = {Proc. of 26th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM 2010)},
Month = {Sept.},
Year = {2010}
}
@InProceedings{SainiFLYMSBL2019,
author = "Saini, Vaibhav and Farmahinifarahani, Farima and Lu, Yadong and Yang, Di and Martins, Pedro and Sajnani, Hitesh and Baldi, Pierre and Lopes, Cristina V.",
title = "Towards automating precision studies of clone detectors",
crossref = "ICSE2019",
pages = "49-59",
}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Debugging
%%%
@inproceedings{10.1145/3586183.3606781,
author = {Alaboudi, Abdulaziz and Latoza, Thomas D.},
title = {Hypothesizer: A Hypothesis-Based Debugger to Find and Test Debugging Hypotheses},
year = {2023},
isbn = {9798400701320},
publisher = {Association for Computing Machinery},
address = {New York, NY, USA},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1145/3586183.3606781},
doi = {10.1145/3586183.3606781},
abstract = {When software defects occur, developers begin the debugging process by formulating hypotheses to explain the cause. These hypotheses guide the investigation process, determining which evidence developers gather to accept or reject the hypothesis, such as parts of the code and program state developers examine. However, existing debugging techniques do not offer support in finding relevant hypotheses, leading to wasted time testing hypotheses and examining code that ultimately does not lead to a fix. To address this issue, we introduce a new type of debugging tool, the hypothesis-based debugger, and an implementation of this tool in Hypothesizer. Hypothesis-based debuggers support developers from the beginning of the debugging process by finding relevant hypotheses until the defect is fixed. To debug using Hypothesizer, developers first demonstrate the defect, generating a recording of the program behavior with code execution, user interface events, network communications, and user interface changes. Based on this information and the developer’s descriptions of the symptoms, Hypothesizer finds relevant hypotheses, analyzes the code to identify relevant evidence to test the hypothesis, and generates an investigation plan through a timeline view. This summarizes all evidence items related to the hypothesis, indicates whether the hypothesis is likely to be true by showing which evidence items were confirmed in the recording, and enables the developer to quickly check evidence in the recording by viewing code snippets for each evidence item. A randomized controlled experiment with 16 professional developers found that, compared to traditional debugging tools and techniques such as breakpoint debuggers and Stack Overflow, Hypothesizer dramatically improved the success rate of fixing defects by a factor of five and decreased the time to debug by a factor of three.},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology},
articleno = {73},
numpages = {14},
keywords = {debugging tools, debugging hypotheses, debugging},
location = {<conf-loc>, <city>San Francisco</city>, <state>CA</state>, <country>USA</country>, </conf-loc>},
series = {UIST '23}
}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Documentation
%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Miscellaneous
%%%
@Misc{Borland2004,
author = "Borland",
title = "Making Development A Team Sport",
howpublished = "demo at JavaOne",
month = jun # "~29,",
year = 2004
}
@InProceedings{ChowN96,
author = "Kingsum Chow and David Notkin",
title = "Semi-automatic update of applications in response to
library changes",
crossref = "ICSM96",
pages = "259--368",
}
@InProceedings{MandelinXBK2005,
author = "David Mandelin and Lin Xu and Rastislav Bod{\'\i}k and
Doug Kimmelman",
authorSEARCHABLE = "Rastislav Bodik",
title = "Jungloid mining: Helping to navigate the {API} jungle",
crossref = "PLDI2005",
pages = "48--61",
abstract =
"Reuse of existing code from class libraries and frameworks is often
difficult because APIs are complex and the client code required to use the
APIs can be hard to write. We observed that a common scenario is that the
programmer knows what type of object he needs, but does not know how to
write the code to get the object.
\par
In order to help programmers write API client code more easily, we
developed techniques for synthesizing jungloid code fragments automatically
given a simple query that describes that desired code in terms of input and
output types. A jungloid is simply a unary expression; jungloids are
simple, enabling synthesis, but are also versatile, covering many coding
problems, and composable, combining to form more complex code fragments. We
synthesize jungloids using both API method signatures and jungloids mined
from a corpus of sample client programs.
\par
We implemented a tool, Prospector, based on these techniques. Prospector is
integrated with the Eclipse IDE code assistance feature, and it infers
queries from context so there is no need for the programmer to write
queries. We tested Prospector on a set of real programming problems
involving APIs; Prospector found the desired solution for 18 of 20
problems.We also evaluated Prospector in a user study, finding that
programmers solved programming problems more quickly and with more reuse
when using Prospector than without Prospector."
}
@Article{SanthiarPK2014,
author = "Santhiar, Anirudh and Pandita, Omesh and Kanade, Aditya",
title = "Mining Unit Tests for Discovery and Migration of Math {APIs}",
journal = TOSEM,
year = 2014,
volume = 24,
number = 1,
pages = "4:1--4:33",
month = oct,
}
@InProceedings{GhafariGMT2014,
author = "Mohammad Ghafari and Carlo Ghezzi and Andrea Mocci and Giordano Tamburrelli",
title = "Mining unit tests for code recommendation",
crossref = "ICPC2014",
pages = "142--145",
}
@InProceedings{RutarAF2004,
author = "Nick Rutar and Christian B. Almazan and Jeffrey S. Foster",
title = "A comparison of bug finding tools for {Java}",
crossref = "ISSRE2004",
pages = "245--256",
abstract =
"Bugs in software are costly and difficult to find and fix. In recent years,
many tools and techniques have been developed for automatically finding
bugs by analyzing source code or intermediate code statically (at compile
time). Different tools and techniques have different tradeoffs, but the
practical impact of these tradeoffs is not well understood. In this paper,
we apply five bug finding tools, specifically Bandera, ESC/Java 2,
FindBugs, JLint, and PMD, to a variety of Java programs. By using a variety
of tools, we are able to cross-check their bug reports and warnings. Our
experimental results show that none of the tools strictly subsumes another,
and indeed the tools often find non-overlapping bugs. We discuss the
techniques each of the tools is based on, and we suggest how particular
techniques affect the output of the tools. Finally, we propose a meta-tool
that combines the output of the tools together, looking for particular
lines of code, methods, and classes that many tools warn about.",
}
@Book{GhezziJM91,
author = "Carlo Ghezzi and Mehdi Jazayeri and Dino Mandrioli",
title = "Fundamentals of Software Engineering",
edition = "1",
publisher = "Prentice Hall",
address = "Englewood Cliffs, NJ",
year = "1991",
ISBN = "0-13-818204-3",
}
@Book{Lamb88,
author = "David Alex Lamb",
title = "Software Engineering: Planning for Change",
publisher = "Prentice Hall",
address = "Englewood Cliffs, NJ",
year = 1988
}
@Book{Sommerville:1996a,
author = "Ian Sommerville",
title = "Software Engineering",
publisher = "Addison-Wesley",
year = "1996",
address = "Wokingham, England",
edition = "Fifth",
}
@Book{Pressman92,
author = "Roger S. Pressman",
title = "Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach",
publisher = "McGraw-Hill",
year = 1992,
address = "New York",
edition = "Third"
}
@InProceedings{VandevoordeG94,
author = "Mark T. Vandevoorde and John V. Guttag",
title = "Using specialized procedures and specification-based analysis