Information retrieval axioms are formalized constraints that retrieval systems should ideally satisfy (e.g., to rank documents higher that contain the query terms more often). In this paper, we propose new axioms that focus on the scenario of argument retrieval: retrieval for queries that need arguments in the results. Our underlying axiomatic idea is that in such scenarios, documents should be prioritized with argumentative units that are similar to the query. We test our new axioms in re-ranking experiments on the data of the Touché ~2020 and~2021 shared task on argument retrieval for controversial questions, and show that the new axioms can improve the effectiveness of Touché's strong DirichletLM baseline model and even of the top-performing system from Touché ~2021, a system already specifically optimized for argument retrieval. Finally, we also propose a new method for visualizing the relationships between axioms based on their effects in re-ranking settings.

Context: Static analyses are well-established to aid in understanding bugs or vulnerabilities during the development process or in large-scale studies. A low false-positive rate is essential for the adaption in practice and for precise results of empirical studies. Unfortunately, static analyses tend to report where a vulnerability manifests rather than the fix location. This can cause presumed false positives or imprecise results. Method: To address this problem, we designed an adaption of an existing static analysis algorithm that can distinguish between a manifestation and fix location, and reports error chains. An error chain represents at least two interconnected errors that occur successively, thus building the connection between the fix and manifestation location. We used our tool$CogniCrypt_{SUBS}$for a case study on 471 GitHub repositories, a performance benchmark to compare different analysis configurations, and conducted an expert interview. Result: We found that 50 % of the projects with a report had at least one error chain. Our runtime benchmark demonstrated that our improvement caused only a minimal runtime overhead of less than 4 %. The results of our expert interview indicate that with our adapted version participants require fewer executions of the analysis. Conclusion: Our results indicate that error chains occur frequently in real-world projects, and ignoring them can lead to imprecise evaluation results. The runtime benchmark indicates that our tool is a feasible and efficient solution for detecting error chains in real-world projects. Further, our results gave a hint that the usability of static analyses may benefit from supporting error chains.