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

Piramanayagam Arumuga Nainar

dblp:77/2966 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 2 first-author

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
3 papers
Debugging and program repair · 56% Program analysis · 23% Concurrent programming · 15%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Debugging and program repair › fault localization
statistical debugging
0.222010
Adaptive bug isolation · ICSE (1) 2010
Statistical debugging using compound boolean predicates · ISSTA 2007
Program analysis
dynamic analysis
0.122010
Adaptive bug isolation · ICSE (1) 2010
Statistical debugging using compound boolean predicates · ISSTA 2007
Debugging and program repair
fault localization
0.112010
Adaptive bug isolation · ICSE (1) 2010
Concurrent programming
concurrency bugs
0.112008
Finding and Reproducing Heisenbugs in Concurrent Programs · OSDI 2008
Software testing › software reliability
failure prediction
0.012010
Adaptive bug isolation · ICSE (1) 2010
Debugging and program repair
bug reproduction
0.012008
Finding and Reproducing Heisenbugs in Concurrent Programs · OSDI 2008

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

statistical modeling · 0.1control-dependence graph search · 0.1binary instrumentation · 0.1three-valued logic · 0.1statistical estimation · 0.1machine learning · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 Adaptive bug isolation
abstract
Statistical debugging uses lightweight instrumentation and statistical models to identify program behaviors that are strongly predictive of failure. However, most software is mostly correct; nearly all monitored behaviors are poor predictors of failure. We propose an adaptive monitoring strategy that mitigates the overhead associated with monitoring poor failure predictors. We begin by monitoring a small portion of the program, then automatically refine instrumentation over time to zero in on bugs. We formulate this approach as a search on the control-dependence graph of the program. We present and evaluate various heuristics that can be used for this search. We also discuss the construction of a binary instrumentor for incorporating the feedback loop into post-deployment monitoring. Performance measurements show that adaptive bug isolation yields an average performance overhead of 1% for a class of large applications, as opposed to 87% for realistic sampling-based instrumentation and 300% for complete binary instrumentation.
Piramanayagam Arumuga Nainar, Ben Liblit
ICSE (1)1
2008 Finding and Reproducing Heisenbugs in Concurrent Programs
Madan Musuvathi, Shaz Qadeer, Thomas Ball 0001, Gérard Basler, Piramanayagam Arumuga Nainar, Iulian Neamtiu
OSDI5
2007 Statistical debugging using compound boolean predicates
abstract
Statistical debugging uses dynamic instrumentation and machine learning to identify predicates on program state that are strongly predictive of program failure. Prior approaches have only considered simple, atomic predicates such as the directions of branches or the return values of function calls. We enrich the predicate vocabulary by adding complex Boolean formulae derived from these simple predicates. We draw upon three-valued logic, static program structure, and statistical estimation techniques to efficiently sift through large numbers of candidate Boolean predicate formulae. We present qualitative and quantitative evidence that complex predicates are practical, precise, and informative. Furthermore, we demonstrate that our approach is robust in the face of incomplete data provided by the sparse random sampling that typifies postdeployment statistical debugging.
Piramanayagam Arumuga Nainar, Jake Rosin, Ben Liblit
ISSTA1