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

Alexey Zhikhartsev

dblp:204/3798 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—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
Software testing · 54% Debugging and program repair · 46%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Debugging and program repair
automated program repair
0.312017
Better test cases for better automated program repair · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2017
Software testing
fuzzing
0.312017
Better test cases for better automated program repair · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2017
Debugging and program repair › automated program repair › patch correctness assessment
overfitting patch detection
0.312017
Better test cases for better automated program repair · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2017
Software testing
test generation
0.312017
Better test cases for better automated program repair · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2017
Software testing
test oracle
0.112017
Better test cases for better automated program repair · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2017

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

overfitting metric · 0.3fuzz testing · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 Better test cases for better automated program repair
abstract
Automated generate-and-validate program repair techniques (G&V techniques) suffer from generating many overfitted patches due to in-capabilities of test cases. Such overfitted patches are incor- rect patches, which only make all given test cases pass, but fail to fix the bugs. In this work, we propose an overfitted patch detec- tion framework named Opad (Overfitted PAtch Detection). Opad helps improve G&V techniques by enhancing existing test cases to filter out overfitted patches. To enhance test cases, Opad uses fuzz testing to generate new test cases, and employs two test or- acles (crash and memory-safety) to enhance validity checking of automatically-generated patches. Opad also uses a novel metric (named O-measure) for deciding whether automatically-generated patches overfit. Evaluated on 45 bugs from 7 large systems (the same benchmark used by GenProg and SPR), Opad filters out 75.2% (321/427) over- fitted patches generated by GenProg/AE, Kali, and SPR. In addition, Opad guides SPR to generate correct patches for one more bug (the original SPR generates correct patches for 11 bugs). Our analysis also shows that up to 40% of such automatically-generated test cases may further improve G&V techniques if empowered with better test oracles (in addition to crash and memory-safety oracles employed by Opad).
Jinqiu Yang 0001, Alexey Zhikhartsev, Yuefei Liu, Lin Tan 0001
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE2