2021
DOI: 10.1109/tse.2019.2944914
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

SOSRepair: Expressive Semantic Search for Real-World Program Repair

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 121 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…ManyBugs [16] benchmark consists of 185 defects taken from nine large, open source C projects. This benchmark is commonly used in evaluating automatic program repair tools [9], [26], [27]. Prior work [28] argues for explicitly defining the defect classes while evaluating various program repair tools, to ensure a fair comparison of tools on comparable classes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…ManyBugs [16] benchmark consists of 185 defects taken from nine large, open source C projects. This benchmark is commonly used in evaluating automatic program repair tools [9], [26], [27]. Prior work [28] argues for explicitly defining the defect classes while evaluating various program repair tools, to ensure a fair comparison of tools on comparable classes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…TRIDENT supports the defect classes of Angelix 3 while additionally supporting those defect classes with side effects that assignment can model. Following previous work [27], we eliminated the samples that do not belong to TRIDENT's defect classes or that TRIDENT could not compiled due to version incompatibilities; this led to MB37, which is a dataset of 37 samples.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The method used for each of these steps can significantly affect the tool's success. Existing research in APR has mostly focused on devising novel patch generation algorithms (e.g., heuristic-based [12]- [16], constraint-based [17]- [20], and learning-based [21]- [23]) aimed to produce more correct patches. Recently, researchers have started investigating the effect of using different technologies, assumptions, and adaptations of fault localization techniques [24]- [29], and patch validation methodologies [30]- [35] on the performance of APR tools.…”
Section: Research Problem and Hypothesismentioning
confidence: 99%