Xuan Bach D. Le

Thanh Le-Cong, Duc-Minh Luong, Xuan Bach D. Le et al.

Automated program repair (APR) faces the challenge of test overfitting, where generated patches pass validation tests but fail to generalize. Existing methods for patch assessment involve generating new tests or manual inspection, which can be time-consuming or biased. In this paper, we propose a novel technique, INVALIDATOR, to automatically assess the correctness of APR-generated patches via semantic and syntactic reasoning. INVALIDATOR leverages program invariants to reason about program semantics while also capturing program syntax through language semantics learned from a large code corpus using a pre-trained language model. Given a buggy program and the developer-patched program, INVALIDATOR infers likely invariants on both programs. Then, INVALIDATOR determines that an APR-generated patch overfits if: (1) it violates correct specifications or (2) maintains erroneous behaviors from the original buggy program. In case our approach fails to determine an overfitting patch based on invariants, INVALIDATOR utilizes a trained model from labeled patches to assess patch correctness based on program syntax. The benefit of INVALIDATOR is threefold. First, INVALIDATOR leverages both semantic and syntactic reasoning to enhance its discriminative capability. Second, INVALIDATOR does not require new test cases to be generated, but instead only relies on the current test suite and uses invariant inference to generalize program behaviors. Third, INVALIDATOR is fully automated. Experimental results demonstrate that INVALIDATOR outperforms existing methods in terms of Accuracy and F-measure, correctly identifying 79% of overfitting patches and detecting 23% more overfitting patches than the best baseline.

Thanh Le-Cong, Xuan Bach D. Le, Quyet-Thang Huynh et al.

With the recent explosive growth of mobile devices such as smartphones or tablets, guaranteeing consistent web appearance across all environments has become a significant problem. This happens simply because it is hard to keep track of the web appearance on different sizes and types of devices that render the web pages. Therefore, fixing the inconsistent appearance of web pages can be difficult, and the cost incurred can be huge, e.g., poor user experience and financial loss due to it. Recently, automated web repair techniques have been proposed to automatically resolve inconsistent web page appearance, focusing on improving usability. However, generated patches tend to disrupt the webpage's layout, rendering the repaired webpage aesthetically unpleasing, e.g., distorted images or misalignment of components. In this paper, we propose an automated repair approach for web pages based on meta-heuristic algorithms that can assure both usability and aesthetics. The key novelty that empowers our approach is a novel fitness function that allows us to optimistically evolve buggy web pages to find the best solution that optimizes both usability and aesthetics at the same time. Empirical evaluations show that our approach is able to successfully resolve mobile-friendly problems in 94% of the evaluation subjects, significantly outperforming state-of-the-art baseline techniques in terms of both usability and aesthetics.

Xuan Bach D. Le, Lingfeng Bao, David Lo et al.

Current state-of-the-art automatic software repair (ASR) techniques rely heavily on incomplete specifications, e.g., test suites, to generate repairs. This, however, may render ASR tools to generate incorrect repairs that do not generalize. To assess patch correctness, researchers have been following two typical ways separately: (1) Automated annotation, wherein patches are automatically labeled by an independent test suite (ITS) - a patch passing the ITS is regarded as correct or generalizable, and incorrect otherwise, (2) Author annotation, wherein authors of ASR techniques annotate correctness labels of patches generated by their and competing tools by themselves. While automated annotation fails to prove that a patch is actually correct, author annotation is prone to subjectivity. This concern has caused an on-going debate on appropriate ways to assess the effectiveness of numerous ASR techniques proposed recently. To address this concern, we propose to assess reliability of author and automated annotations on patch correctness assessment. We do this by first constructing a gold set of correctness labels for 189 randomly selected patches generated by 8 state-of-the-art ASR techniques through a user study involving 35 professional developers as independent annotators. By measuring inter-rater agreement as a proxy for annotation quality - as commonly done in the literature - we demonstrate that our constructed gold set is on par with other high-quality gold sets. We then compare labels generated by author and automated annotations with this gold set to assess reliability of the patch assessment methodologies. We subsequently report several findings and highlight implications for future studies.