English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Automated program repair (APR) has been gaining ground recently. However, a significant challenge that still remains is test overfitting, in which APR-generated patches plausibly pass the validation test suite but fail to generalize. A common practice to assess the correctness of APR-generated patches is to judge whether they are equivalent to ground truth, i.e., developer-written patches, by either generating additional test cases or employing human manual inspections. The former often requires the generation of at least one test that shows behavioral differences between the APR-patched and developer-patched programs. Searching for this test, however, can be difficult as the search space can be enormous. Meanwhile, the latter is prone to human biases and requires repetitive and expensive manual effort. In this paper, we propose a novel technique,  Invalidator , to automatically assess the correctness of APR-generated patches via semantic and syntactic reasoning.  Invalidator  leverages program invariants to reason about program semantics while also capturing program syntax through language semantics learned from a large code corpus using a pre-trained language model. Given a buggy program and the developer-patched program,  Invalidator  infers likely invariants on both programs. Then,  Invalidator  determines that an APR-generated patch overfits if: (1) it violates correct specifications or (2) maintains erroneous behaviors from the original buggy program. In case our approach fails to determine an overfitting patch based on invariants,  Invalidator  utilizes a trained model from labeled patches to assess patch correctness based on program syntax. The benefit of  Invalidator  is threefold. First,  Invalidator  leverages both semantic and syntactic reasoning to enhance its discriminative capability. Second,  Invalidator  does not require new test cases to be generated, but instead only relies on the current test suite and uses invariant inference to generalize program behaviors. Third,  Invalidator  is fully automated. We conducted our experiments on a dataset of 885 patches generated on real-world programs in Defects4J. Experiment results show that  Invalidator  correctly classified 79&#x0025; of overfitting patches, accounting for 23&#x0025; more overfitting patches being detected than the best baseline.  Invalidator  also substantially outperforms the best baselines by 14&#x0025; and 19&#x0025; in terms of Accuracy and F-Measure, respectively.

Invalidator: Automated Patch Correctness Assessment via Semantic and Syntactic Reasoning