Ali Mili

h-index22
2papers
1,576citations

2 Papers

2.8SEOct 30, 2019
Stryker: Scaling Specification-Based Program Repair by Pruning Infeasible Mutants with SAT

Luciano Zemín, Simón Gutiérrez Brida, Santiago Bermúdez et al.

Many techniques for automated program repair involve syntactic program transformations. Applying combinations of such transformations on faulty code yields fix candidates whose correctness must be determined. Exploring these combinations leads to an explosion on the number of generated fix candidates that severely limits the applicability of such fault repair techniques. This explosion is most times tamed by not considering fix candidates exhaustively, and by disabling intra-statement modifications. In this article we present a technique for program repair that considers an ample set of intra-statement syntactic operations, and explores fix candidates exhaustively up to a provided bound. The suitability of the technique, implemented in our tool Stryker, is supported by a novel mechanism to detect and prune infeasible fix candidates. This allows Stryker to repair programs with several bugs, whose fixes require multiple modifications. We evaluate our technique on a benchmark of faulty Java container classes, which Stryker is able to repair, pruning significant parts of the space of generated candidates when more than one bug is present in the code.

3.3SEJun 1, 2016
Program Repair by Stepwise Correctness Enhancement

Nafi Diallo, Wided Ghardallou, Ali Mili

Relative correctness is the property of a program to be more-correct than another with respect to a given specification. Whereas the traditional definition of (absolute) correctness divides candidate program into two classes (correct, and incorrect), relative correctness arranges candidate programs on the richer structure of a partial ordering. In other venues we discuss the impact of relative correctness on program derivation, and on program verification. In this paper, we discuss the impact of relative correctness on program testing; specifically, we argue that when we remove a fault from a program, we ought to test the new program for relative correctness over the old program, rather than for absolute correctness. We present analytical arguments to support our position, as well as an empirical argument in the form of a small program whose faults are removed in a stepwise manner as its relative correctness rises with each fault removal until we obtain a correct program.