BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Andrew Habib

Andrew Habib contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceSoftware EngineeringProgramming Languages

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Is this Change the Answer to that Problem? Correlating Descriptions of Bug and Code Changes for Evaluating Patch Correctness

In this work, we propose a novel perspective to the problem of patch correctness assessment: a correct patch implements changes that "answer" to a problem posed by buggy behaviour. Concretely, we turn the patch correctness assessment into a Question Answering problem. To tackle this problem, our intuition is that natural language processing can provide the necessary representations and models for assessing the semantic correlation between a bug (question) and a patch (answer). Specifically, we consider as inputs the bug reports as well as the natural language description of the generated patches. Our approach, Quatrain, first considers state of the art commit message generation models to produce the relevant inputs associated to each generated patch. Then we leverage a neural network architecture to learn the semantic correlation between bug reports and commit messages. Experiments on a large dataset of 9135 patches generated for three bug datasets (Defects4j, Bugs.jar and Bears) show that Quatrain can achieve an AUC of 0.886 on predicting patch correctness, and recalling 93% correct patches while filtering out 62% incorrect patches. Our experimental results further demonstrate the influence of inputs quality on prediction performance. We further perform experiments to highlight that the model indeed learns the relationship between bug reports and code change descriptions for the prediction. Finally, we compare against prior work and discuss the benefits of our approach.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Predicting Patch Correctness Based on the Similarity of Failing Test Cases

Towards predicting patch correctness in APR, we propose a simple, but novel hypothesis on how the link between the patch behaviour and failing test specifications can be drawn: similar failing test cases should require similar patches. We then propose BATS, an unsupervised learning-based system to predict patch correctness by checking patch Behaviour Against failing Test Specification. BATS exploits deep representation learning models for code and patches: for a given failing test case, the yielded embedding is used to compute similarity metrics in the search for historical similar test cases in order to identify the associated applied patches, which are then used as a proxy for assessing generated patch correctness. Experimentally, we first validate our hypothesis by assessing whether ground-truth developer patches cluster together in the same way that their associated failing test cases are clustered. Then, after collecting a large dataset of 1278 plausible patches (written by developers or generated by some 32 APR tools), we use BATS to predict correctness: BATS achieves an AUC between 0.557 to 0.718 and a recall between 0.562 and 0.854 in identifying correct patches. Compared against previous work, we demonstrate that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art performance in patch correctness prediction, without the need for large labeled patch datasets in contrast with prior machine learning-based approaches. While BATS is constrained by the availability of similar test cases, we show that it can still be complementary to existing approaches: used in conjunction with a recent approach implementing supervised learning, BATS improves the overall recall in detecting correct patches. We finally show that BATS can be complementary to the state-of-the-art PATCH-SIM dynamic approach of identifying the correct patches for APR tools.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Type Safety with JSON Subschema

JSON is a popular data format used pervasively in web APIs, cloud computing, NoSQL databases, and increasingly also machine learning. JSON Schema is a language for declaring the structure of valid JSON data. There are validators that can decide whether a JSON document is valid with respect to a schema. Unfortunately, like all instance-based testing, these validators can only show the presence and never the absence of a bug. This paper presents a complementary technique: JSON subschema checking, which can be used for static type checking with JSON Schema. Deciding whether one schema is a subschema of another is non-trivial because of the richness of the JSON Schema specification language. Given a pair of schemas, our approach first canonicalizes and simplifies both schemas, then decides the subschema question on the canonical forms, dispatching simpler subschema queries to type-specific checkers. We apply an implementation of our subschema checking algorithm to 8,548 pairs of real-world JSON schemas from different domains, demonstrating that it can decide the subschema question for most schema pairs and is always correct for schema pairs that it can decide. We hope that our work will bring more static guarantees to hard-to-debug domains, such as cloud computing and artificial intelligence.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access