IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering· 2015Q1
The ManyBugs and IntroClass Benchmarks for Automated Repair of C Programs
- 331citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2015year
Short summary
Two new benchmark datasets, ManyBugs and IntroClass, now provide 1,183 reproducible defects across 15 C programs for evaluating automated software repair algorithms.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Automated software repair requires benchmarks with reproducible defects and deterministic repair assessment.
- The ManyBugs and IntroClass datasets offer 1,183 defects in 15 C programs for evaluating repair algorithms.
- Each defect is categorized to enable qualitative analysis and comparison by bug type or program.
- Baseline experimental results for GenProg, AE, and TrpAutoRepair are provided to aid researchers.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
The field of automated software repair lacks a set of common benchmark problems. Although benchmark sets are used widely throughout computer science, existing benchmarks are not easily adapted to the problem of automatic defect repair, which has several special requirements. Most important of these is the need for benchmark programs with reproducible, important defects and a deterministic method for assessing if those defects have been repaired. This article details the need for a new set of benchmarks, outlines requirements, and then presents two datasets, ManyBugs and IntroClass, consisting between them of 1,183 defects in 15 C programs. Each dataset is designed to support the comparative evaluation of automatic repair algorithms asking a variety of experimental questions. The datasets have empirically defined guarantees of reproducibility and benchmark quality, and each study object is categorized to facilitate qualitative evaluation and comparisons by category of bug or program. The article presents baseline experimental results on both datasets for three existing repair methods, GenProg, AE, and TrpAutoRepair, to reduce the burden on researchers who adopt these datasets for their own comparative evaluations.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2015 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Software
SoftwareComputer Science