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

Wei Le

Wei Le contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
1topics
3close 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

FuzzerAid: Grouping Fuzzed Crashes Based On Fault Signatures

Fuzzing has been an important approach for finding bugs and vulnerabilities in programs. Many fuzzers deployed in industry run daily and can generate an overwhelming number of crashes. Diagnosing such crashes can be very challenging and time-consuming. Existing fuzzers typically employ heuristics such as code coverage or call stack hashes to weed out duplicate reporting of bugs. While these heuristics are cheap, they are often imprecise and end up still reporting many "unique" crashes corresponding to the same bug. In this paper, we present FuzzerAid that uses fault signatures to group crashes reported by the fuzzers. Fault signature is a small executable program and consists of a selection of necessary statements from the original program that can reproduce a bug. In our approach, we first generate a fault signature using a given crash. We then execute the fault signature with other crash inducing inputs. If the failure is reproduced, we classify the crashes into the group labeled with the fault signature; if not, we generate a new fault signature. After all the crash inducing inputs are classified, we further merge the fault signatures of the same root cause into a group. We implemented our approach in a tool called FuzzerAid and evaluated it on 3020 crashes generated from 15 real-world bugs and 4 large open source projects. Our evaluation shows that we are able to correctly group 99.1% of the crashes and reported only 17 (+2) "unique" bugs, outperforming the state-of-the-art fuzzers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

DeepLocalize: Fault Localization for Deep Neural Networks

Deep neural networks (DNNs) are becoming an integral part of most software systems. Previous work has shown that DNNs have bugs. Unfortunately, existing debugging techniques do not support localizing DNN bugs because of the lack of understanding of model behaviors. The entire DNN model appears as a black box. To address these problems, we propose an approach that automatically determines whether the model is buggy or not, and identifies the root causes. Our key insight is that historic trends in values propagated between layers can be analyzed to identify faults, and localize faults. To that end, we first enable dynamic analysis of deep learning applications: by converting it into an imperative representation and alternatively using a callback mechanism. Both mechanisms allows us to insert probes that enable dynamic analysis over the traces produced by the DNN while it is being trained on the training data. We then conduct dynamic analysis over the traces to identify the faulty layer that causes the error. We propose an algorithm for identifying root causes by capturing any numerical error and monitoring the model during training and finding the relevance of every layer on the DNN outcome. We have collected a benchmark containing 40 buggy models and patches that contain real errors in deep learning applications from Stack Overflow and GitHub. Our benchmark can be used to evaluate automated debugging tools and repair techniques. We have evaluated our approach using this DNN bug-and-patch benchmark, and the results showed that our approach is much more effective than the existing debugging approach used in the state of the practice Keras library. For 34 out of 40 cases, our approach was able to detect faults whereas the best debugging approach provided by Keras detected 32 out of 40 faults. Our approach was able to localize 21 out of 40 bugs whereas Keras did not localize any faults.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Invariant Diffs

Software development is inherently incremental. Nowadays, many software companies adopt an agile process and a shorter release cycle, where software needs to be delivered faster with quality assurances. On the other hand, the majority of existing program analysis tools still target single versions of programs and are slow and inflexible to handle changes. In the popular version control systems such as git, the program changes are still presented using source code diffs. It is hard to understand what program conditions are changed and which source code lines cause them. In this paper, we propose to compute "invariant diffs" to specify changes. Similar to source diffs that report common code and code churns, we define version invariants to represent program conditions that are common across versions, and invariant churns to show the changes of program conditions between versions. We designed a static demand-driven, path-sensitive analysis to compute and compare invariants for multiple versions of programs using multiversion control flow graphs. We report invariant diffs at the matched program points where comparing invariants are meaningful. Importantly, our analysis correlates source diffs with invariant diffs to explain what source code changes lead to the property changes. We implemented our algorithms in a tool called $H_2$ and performed experiments on 104 versions of programs. Our results show that we are able to compute invariant diffs correctly within reasonable amount of time. The version invariants can capture the common properties of program versions even constructed by different persons, and the invariant churns can specify the semantics of changes such as how a patch changed a buggy condition to a correct condition.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access