Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Lyly Tran

dblp:225/0246 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2018
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Debugging and program repair · 50% Program analysis · 50%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program analysis › dynamic analysis
dynamic slicing
0.312018
Break the dead end of dynamic slicing: localizing data and control omission bug · ASE 2018
Debugging and program repair
fault localization
0.312018
Break the dead end of dynamic slicing: localizing data and control omission bug · ASE 2018

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

neural network · 0.3dynamic slicing · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2018 Break the dead end of dynamic slicing: localizing data and control omission bug
abstract
Dynamic slicing is a common way of identifying the root cause when a program fault is revealed. With the dynamic slicing technique, the programmers can follow data and control flow along the program execution trace to the root cause. However, the technique usually fails to work on omission bugs, i.e., the faults which are caused by missing executing some code. In many cases, dynamic slicing over-skips the root cause when an omission bug happens, leading the debugging process to a dead end. In this work, we conduct an empirical study on the omission bugs in the Defects4J bug repository. Our study shows that (1) omission bugs are prevalent (46.4%) among all the studied bugs; (2) there are repeating patterns on causes and fixes of the omission bugs; (3) the patterns of fixing omission bugs serve as a strong hint to break the slicing dead end. Based on our findings, we train a neural network model on the omission bugs in Defects4J repository to recommend where to approach when slicing can no long work. We conduct an experiment by applying our approach on 3193 mutated omission bugs which slicing fails to locate. The results show that our approach outperforms random benchmark on breaking the dead end and localizing the mutated omission bugs (63.8% over 2.8%).
Yun Lin 0001, Jun Sun 0001, Lyly Tran, Guangdong Bai, Haijun Wang 0002, Jin Song Dong 0001
ASE3