Boosting Redundancy-based Automated Program Repair by Fine-grained Pattern Mining
December 26, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· π IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Jiajun Jiang, Fengjie Li, Zijie Zhao, Zhirui Ye, Mengjiao Liu, Bo Wang, Hongyu Zhang, Junjie Chen
arXiv ID
2312.15955
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Citations
1
Venue
IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
Redundancy-based automated program repair (APR), which generates patches by referencing existing source code, has gained much attention since they are effective in repairing real-world bugs with good interpretability. However, since existing approaches either demand the existence of multi-line similar code or randomly reference existing code, they can only repair a small number of bugs with many incorrect patches, hindering their wide application in practice. In this work, we aim to improve the effectiveness of redundancy-based APRs by exploring more effective source code reuse methods for improving the number of correct patches and reducing incorrect patches. Specifically, we have proposed a new repair technique named Repatt, which incorporates a two-level pattern mining process for guiding effective patch generation (i.e., token and expression levels). We have conducted an extensive experiment on the widely-used Defects4J benchmark and compared Repatt with ten state-of-the-art APR approaches. The results show that it complements existing approaches by repairing 9 unique bugs compared with the latest Large Language Model (LLM)-based and deep learning-based methods and 19 unique bugs compared with traditional repair methods when providing the perfect fault localization. In addition, when the perfect fault localization is unknown in real practice, Repatt significantly outperforms the baseline approaches by achieving much higher patch precision, i.e., 83.8\%, although it repairs fewer bugs. Moreover, we further proposed an effective patch ranking strategy for combining the strength of Repatt and the baseline methods. The result shows that it repairs 124 bugs when only considering the Top-1 patches and improves the best-performing repair method by repairing 39 more bugs. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach for practical use.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Software Engineering
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Microservices: yesterday, today, and tomorrow
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
An Overview on Smart Contracts: Challenges, Advances and Platforms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Slither: A Static Analysis Framework For Smart Contracts
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
ContractFuzzer: Fuzzing Smart Contracts for Vulnerability Detection
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted