REVIEW 1 cited by
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Towards an automated approach for bug fix pattern detection
read the original abstract
The characterization of bug datasets is essential to support the evaluation of automatic program repair tools. In a previous work, we manually studied almost 400 human-written patches (bug fixes) from the Defects4J dataset and annotated them with properties, such as repair patterns. However, manually finding these patterns in different datasets is tedious and time-consuming. To address this activity, we designed and implemented PPD, a detector of repair patterns in patches, which performs source code change analysis at abstract-syntax tree level. In this paper, we report on PPD and its evaluation on Defects4J, where we compare the results from the automated detection with the results from the previous manual analysis. We found that PPD has overall precision of 91% and overall recall of 92%, and we conclude that PPD has the potential to detect as many repair patterns as human manual analysis.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
On the Effectiveness of Code Representation in Deep Learning-Based Automated Patch Correctness Assessment
Graph-based code representations such as Code Property Graphs achieve the highest accuracy (average 82.6%) in predicting patch correctness across 15 benchmarks and outperform sequence and tree representations when use...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.