research-article

Free access

Automated support for diagnosis and repair

Authors:

Dalal Alrajeh,

Jeff Kramer,

Alessandra Russo,

Sebastian UchitelAuthors Info & Claims

Communications of the ACM, Volume 58, Issue 2

Pages 65 - 72

https://doi.org/10.1145/2658986

Published: 28 January 2015 Publication History

All formats PDF

Abstract

Model checking and logic-based learning together deliver automated support, especially in adaptive and autonomous systems.

References

[1]

Agrawal, H. and Horgan, J.R. Dynamic program slicing. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (White Plains, New York, June 20--22). ACM Press, New York, 1990, 246--256.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[2]

Alama, J., Heskes, T., Kühlwein, D., Tsivtsivadze, E., and Urban, J. Premise selection for mathematics by corpus analysis and kernel methods. Journal of Automated Reasoning 52, 2 (Feb. 2014), 191--213.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[3]

Alrajeh, D., Kramer, J., Russo, A., and Uchitel, S. Learning from vacuously satisfiable scenario-based specifications. In Proceedings of the 15^th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (Tallinn, Estonia, Mar. 24--Apr. 1). Springer, Berlin, 2012, 377--393.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[4]

Alrajeh, D., Kramer, J., Russo, A., and Uchitel, S. Elaborating requirements using model checking and inductive learning. IEEE Transaction Software Engineering 39, 3 (Mar. 2013), 361--383.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[5]

Alrajeh, D., Russo, A., Uchitel, S., and Kramer, J. Integrating model checking and inductive logic programming. In Proceedings of the 21^st International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming (Windsor Great Park, U.K., July 31--Aug. 3). Springer, Berlin, 2012, 45--60.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[6]

Blanchette, J.C. and Nipkow, T. Nitpick: A counterexample generator for higher-order logic based on a relational model finder. In Proceedings of the first International Conference on Interactive Theorem Proving (Edinburgh, U.K., July 11--14). Springer, Berlin, 2010, 131--146.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[7]

Borges, R.V., d'Avila Garcez, A.S., and Lamb, L.C. Learning and representing temporal knowledge in recurrent networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 22, 12 (Dec. 2011), 2409--2421.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[8]

Buccafurri, F., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., and Leone, N. Enhancing model checking in verification by AI techniques. Artificial Intelligence 112, 1--2 (Aug. 1999), 57--104.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[9]

Carzaniga, A., Gorla, A., Mattavelli, A., Perino, N., and Pezzé, M. Automatic recovery from runtime failures. In Proceedings of the 35^th International Conference on Software Engineering (San Francisco, CA, May 18--26). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 2013, 782--791.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[10]

Clarke, E.M. The birth of model checking. In 25 Years of Model Checking, O. Grumberg and H. Veith, Eds. Springer, Berlin, 2008, 1--26.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[11]

Corapi, D., Russo, A., and Lupu, E. Inductive logic programming as abductive search. In Technical Communications of the 26^th International Conference on Logic Programming, M. Hermenegildo and T. Schaub, Eds. (Edinburgh, Scotland, July 16--19). Schloss Dagstuhl, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2010, 54--63.

Google Scholar

[12]

Eichinger, F. and Bohm, K. Software-bug localization with graph mining. In Managing and Mining Graph Data, C.C. Aggarwal and H. Wang, Eds. Springer, New York, 2010, 515--546.

Google Scholar

[13]

Forrest, S., Nguyen, T., Weimer, W., and Le Goues, C. A genetic programming approach to automated software repair. In Proceedings of the 11^th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (Montreal, Canada, July 8--12). ACM Press, New York, 2009, 947--954.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[14]

Liblit, B., Naik, M., Zheng, A.X., Aiken, A., and Jordan, M.I. Scalable statistical bug isolation. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (Chicago, June 12--15). ACM Press, New York, 2005, 15--26.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[15]

Muggleton, S. and Marginean, F. Logic-based artificial intelligence. In Logic-Based Machine Learning, J. Minker, Ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 2000, 315--330.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[16]

Sakama, C. and Inoue, K. Brave induction: A logical framework for learning from incomplete information. Machine Learning 76, 1 (July 2009), 3--35.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[17]

Seshia, S.A. Sciduction: Combining induction, deduction, and structure for verification and synthesis. In Proceedings of the 49^th ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference (San Francisco, CA, June 3--7). ACM, New York, 2012, 356--365.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[18]

Srivastava, S., Gulwani, S., and Foster, J.S. From program verification to program synthesis. SIGPLAN Notices 45, 1 (Jan. 2010), 313--326.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[19]

Sutcliffe, G., and Puzis, Y. Srass: A semantic relevance axiom selection system. In Proceedings of the 21^st International Conference on Automated Deduction (Bremen, Germany, July 17--20). Springer, Berlin, 2007, 295--310.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[20]

van Lamsweerde, A. Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2009.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[21]

van Lamsweerde, A. and Letier, E. Handling obstacles in goal-oriented requirements engineering. IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering 26, 10 (Oct. 2000), 978--1005.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[22]

Weiser, M. Program slicing. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Software Engineering (San Diego, CA, Mar. 9--12). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 1981, 439--449.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[23]

Zeller, A. Yesterday, my program worked. Today, it does not. Why? In Proceedings of the Seventh European Software Engineering Conference (held jointly with the Seventh ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering) (Toulouse, France, Sept. 6--10), Springer, London, 1999, 253--267.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Sharma TKechagia MGeorgiou STiwari RVats IMoazen HSarro F(2024)A survey on machine learning techniques applied to source codeJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2023.111934209:COnline publication date: 14-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.jss.2023.111934
Cai CSun JDobbie GHóu ZBride HDong JLee S(2022)Fast Automated Abstract Machine Repair Using Simultaneous Modifications and RefactoringFormal Aspects of Computing10.1145/353643034:2(1-31)Online publication date: 20-Sep-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3536430
Fumagalli MSales TBaião FGuizzardi G(2022)Conceptual model visual simulation and the inductive learning of missing domain constraintsData & Knowledge Engineering10.1016/j.datak.2022.102040140(102040)Online publication date: Jul-2022
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2022.102040
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Automated support for diagnosis and repair
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
    1. Software verification and validation
      1. Software defect analysis
        Software testing and debugging

Recommendations

Automated Reasoning Repair
FTfJP '22: Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Workshop on Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs

Formal methods are used for verifying software correctness and reliability, especially for safety- and security-critical systems. After changing or refactoring code, it is often necessary to repair a program’s correctness proof, which can be time-...
MintHint: automated synthesis of repair hints
ICSE 2014: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering

Being able to automatically repair programs is at the same time a very compelling vision and an extremely challenging task. In this paper, we present MintHint, a novel technique for program repair that is a departure from most of today’s approaches. ...
Do automated program repair techniques repair hard and important bugs?

Existing evaluations of automated repair techniques focus on the fraction of the defects for which the technique can produce a patch, the time needed to produce patches, and how well patches generalize to the intended specification. However, these ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

Communications of the ACM Volume 58, Issue 2

February 2015

84 pages

ISSN:0001-0782

EISSN:1557-7317

DOI:10.1145/2728770

Editor:
Moshe Y. Vardi
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY

Issue’s Table of Contents

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 28 January 2015

Published in CACM Volume 58, Issue 2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Research-article
Popular
Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

13
Total Citations
View Citations
1,808
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)309
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)54

Reflects downloads up to 08 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Sharma TKechagia MGeorgiou STiwari RVats IMoazen HSarro F(2024)A survey on machine learning techniques applied to source codeJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2023.111934209:COnline publication date: 14-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.jss.2023.111934
Cai CSun JDobbie GHóu ZBride HDong JLee S(2022)Fast Automated Abstract Machine Repair Using Simultaneous Modifications and RefactoringFormal Aspects of Computing10.1145/353643034:2(1-31)Online publication date: 20-Sep-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3536430
Fumagalli MSales TBaião FGuizzardi G(2022)Conceptual model visual simulation and the inductive learning of missing domain constraintsData & Knowledge Engineering10.1016/j.datak.2022.102040140(102040)Online publication date: Jul-2022
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2022.102040
Barriga ARutle AHeldal R(2022)AI-powered model repair: an experience report—lessons learned, challenges, and opportunitiesSoftware and Systems Modeling (SoSyM)10.1007/s10270-022-00983-521:3(1135-1157)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10270-022-00983-5
Cai CSun JDobbie G(2021)B Model Quality Assessments on Automated Reachability Repair with ISO/IEC 25010Science of Computer Programming10.1016/j.scico.2021.102732(102732)Online publication date: Oct-2021
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2021.102732
Fumagalli MSales TGuizzardi G(2020)Towards Automated Support for Conceptual Model Diagnosis and RepairAdvances in Conceptual Modeling10.1007/978-3-030-65847-2_2(15-25)Online publication date: 3-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-65847-2_2
Guerra PWassermann R(2019)Two AGM-style characterizations of model repairAnnals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence10.1007/s10472-019-09656-4Online publication date: 2-Aug-2019
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-019-09656-4
Casale GArtač Mvan den Heuvel Wvan Hoorn AJakovits PLeymann FLong MPapanikolaou VPresenza DRusso ASrirama STamburri DWurster MZhu L(2019)RADON: rational decomposition and orchestration for serverless computingSICS Software-Intensive Cyber-Physical Systems10.1007/s00450-019-00413-wOnline publication date: 26-Aug-2019
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00450-019-00413-w
Leildé VRibaud VTeodorov CDhaussy P(2018)Domain-Oriented Verification ManagementModel and Data Engineering10.1007/978-3-030-00856-7_24(354-370)Online publication date: 13-Sep-2018
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00856-7_24
Leildé VRibaud VTeodorov CDhaussy P(2017)A Diagnosis Framework for Critical Systems Verification (Short Paper)Software Engineering and Formal Methods10.1007/978-3-319-66197-1_27(394-400)Online publication date: 13-Aug-2017
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66197-1_27
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Digital Edition

View this article in digital edition.

Digital Edition

Magazine Site

View this article on the magazine site (external)

Magazine Site

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Abstract

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Automated Reasoning Repair

MintHint: automated synthesis of repair hints

Do automated program repair techniques repair hard and important bugs?

Comments

Information

Published In

Publisher

Publication History

Permissions

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View options

PDF

eReader

Digital Edition

Magazine Site

Login options

Full Access

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

Affiliations