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

John Kotheimer

dblp:225/0243 · 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 · 87% Software testing · 13%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Debugging and program repair › crash report analysis
crash bucketing
0.312018
Semantic crash bucketing · ASE 2018
Debugging and program repair › crash report analysis
crash triage
0.312018
Semantic crash bucketing · ASE 2018
Software testing
fuzzing
0.112018
Semantic crash bucketing · ASE 2018

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

semantic feedback · 0.3program transformation · 0.3patch templates · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2018 Semantic crash bucketing
abstract
Precise crash triage is important for automated dynamic testing tools, like fuzzers. At scale, fuzzers produce millions of crashing inputs. Fuzzers use heuristics, like stack hashes, to cut down on duplicate bug reports. These heuristics are fast, but often imprecise: even after deduplication, hundreds of uniquely reported crashes can still correspond to the same bug. Remaining crashes must be inspected manually, incurring considerable effort. In this paper we present Semantic Crash Bucketing, a generic method for precise crash bucketing using program transformation. Semantic Crash Bucketing maps crashing inputs to unique bugs as a function of changing a program (i.e., a semantic delta). We observe that a real bug fix precisely identifies crashes belonging to the same bug. Our insight is to approximate real bug fixes with lightweight program transformation to obtain the same level of precision. Our approach uses (a) patch templates and (b) semantic feedback from the program to automatically generate and apply approximate fixes for general bug classes. Our evaluation shows that approximate fixes are competitive with using true fixes for crash bucketing, and significantly outperforms built-in deduplication techniques for three state of the art fuzzers.
Rijnard van Tonder, John Kotheimer, Claire Le Goues
ASE2