Empirical Review of Java Program Repair Tools: A Large-Scale Experiment on 2,141 Bugs and 23,551 Repair Attempts

May 28, 2019 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐Ÿ› ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE

๐Ÿ‘ป CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Thomas Durieux, Fernanda Madeiral, Matias Martinez, Rui Abreu arXiv ID 1905.11973 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 133 Venue ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE Last Checked 1 month ago
Abstract
In the past decade, research on test-suite-based automatic program repair has grown significantly. Each year, new approaches and implementations are featured in major software engineering venues. However, most of those approaches are evaluated on a single benchmark of bugs, which are also rarely reproduced by other researchers. In this paper, we present a large-scale experiment using 11 Java test-suite-based repair tools and 5 benchmarks of bugs. Our goal is to have a better understanding of the current state of automatic program repair tools on a large diversity of benchmarks. Our investigation is guided by the hypothesis that the repairability of repair tools might not be generalized across different benchmarks of bugs. We found that the 11 tools 1) are able to generate patches for 21% of the bugs from the 5 benchmarks, and 2) have better performance on Defects4J compared to other benchmarks, by generating patches for 47% of the bugs from Defects4J compared to 10-30% of bugs from the other benchmarks. Our experiment comprises 23,551 repair attempts in total, which we used to find the causes of non-patch generation. These causes are reported in this paper, which can help repair tool designers to improve their techniques and tools.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Software Engineering

Died the same way โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ป Ghosted