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

Annibale Panichella

Annibale Panichella contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software EngineeringMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
2topics
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

4 published item(s)

preprint2024arXiv

Breaking the Silence: the Threats of Using LLMs in Software Engineering

Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained considerable traction within the Software Engineering (SE) community, impacting various SE tasks from code completion to test generation, from program repair to code summarization. Despite their promise, researchers must still be careful as numerous intricate factors can influence the outcomes of experiments involving LLMs. This paper initiates an open discussion on potential threats to the validity of LLM-based research including issues such as closed-source models, possible data leakage between LLM training data and research evaluation, and the reproducibility of LLM-based findings. In response, this paper proposes a set of guidelines tailored for SE researchers and Language Model (LM) providers to mitigate these concerns. The implications of the guidelines are illustrated using existing good practices followed by LLM providers and a practical example for SE researchers in the context of test case generation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Single and Multi-objective Test Cases Prioritization for Self-driving Cars in Virtual Environments

Testing with simulation environments helps to identify critical failing scenarios for self-driving cars (SDCs). Simulation-based tests are safer than in-field operational tests and allow detecting software defects before deployment. However, these tests are very expensive and are too many to be run frequently within limited time constraints. In this paper, we investigate test case prioritization techniques to increase the ability to detect SDC regression faults with virtual tests earlier. Our approach, called SDC-Prioritizer, prioritizes virtual tests for SDCs according to static features of the roads we designed to be used within the driving scenarios. These features can be collected without running the tests, which means that they do not require past execution results. We introduce two evolutionary approaches to prioritize the test cases using diversity metrics (black-box heuristics) computed on these static features. These two approaches, called SO-SDC-Prioritizer and MO-SDC-Prioritizer, use single-objective and multi-objective genetic algorithms, respectively, to find trade-offs between executing the less expensive tests and the most diverse test cases earlier. Our empirical study conducted in the SDC domain shows that MO-SDC-Prioritizer significantly improves the ability to detect safety-critical failures at the same level of execution time compared to baselines: random and greedy-based test case orderings. Besides, our study indicates that multi-objective meta-heuristics outperform single-objective approaches when prioritizing simulation-based tests for SDCs. MO-SDC-Prioritizer prioritizes test cases with a large improvement in fault detection while its overhead (up to 0.45% of the test execution cost) is negligible.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

What Are We Really Testing in Mutation Testing for Machine Learning? A Critical Reflection

Mutation testing is a well-established technique for assessing a test suite's quality by injecting artificial faults into production code. In recent years, mutation testing has been extended to machine learning (ML) systems, and deep learning (DL) in particular; researchers have proposed approaches, tools, and statistically sound heuristics to determine whether mutants in DL systems are killed or not. However, as we will argue in this work, questions can be raised to what extent currently used mutation testing techniques in DL are actually in line with the classical interpretation of mutation testing. We observe that ML model development resembles a test-driven development (TDD) process, in which a training algorithm (`programmer') generates a model (program) that fits the data points (test data) to labels (implicit assertions), up to a certain threshold. However, considering proposed mutation testing techniques for ML systems under this TDD metaphor, in current approaches, the distinction between production and test code is blurry, and the realism of mutation operators can be challenged. We also consider the fundamental hypotheses underlying classical mutation testing: the competent programmer hypothesis and coupling effect hypothesis. As we will illustrate, these hypotheses do not trivially translate to ML system development, and more conscious and explicit scoping and concept mapping will be needed to truly draw parallels. Based on our observations, we propose several action points for better alignment of mutation testing techniques for ML with paradigms and vocabularies of classical mutation testing.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Scalable Inference of System-level Models from Component Logs

Behavioral software models play a key role in many software engineering tasks; unfortunately, these models either are not available during software development or, if available, they quickly become outdated as the implementations evolve. Model inference techniques have been proposed as a viable solution to extract finite-state models from execution logs. However, existing techniques do not scale well when processing very large logs, such as system-level logs obtained by combining component-level logs. Furthermore, in the case of component-based systems, existing techniques assume to know the definitions of communication channels between components. However, this information is usually not available in the case of systems integrating 3rd-party components with limited documentation. In this paper, we address the scalability problem of inferring the model of a component-based system from the individual component-level logs, when the only available information about the system are high-level architecture dependencies among components and a (possibly incomplete) list of log message templates denoting communication events between components. Our model inference technique, called SCALER, follows a divide and conquer approach. The idea is to first infer a model of each system component from the corresponding logs; then, the individual component models are merged together taking into account the dependencies among components, as reflected in the logs. We evaluated SCALER in terms of scalability and accuracy, using a dataset of logs from an industrial system; the results show that SCALER can process much larger logs than a state-of-the-art tool, while yielding more accurate models.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access