The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Simplifying and isolating failure-inducing input
Abstract
Given some test case, a program fails. Which circumstances of the test case are responsible for the particular failure? The delta debugging algorithm generalizes and simplifies the failing test case to a minimal test case that still produces the failure. It also isolates the difference between a passing and a failing test case. In a case study, the Mozilla Web browser crashed after 95 user actions. Our prototype implementation automatically simplified the input to three relevant user actions. Likewise, it simplified 896 lines of HTML to the single line that caused the failure. The case study required 139 automated test runs or 35 minutes on a 500 MHz PC.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A Survey on Software Fault Localization
Wong, W. E., Gao, R., Li, Y., Abreu, R., & Wotawa, F. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2016.2521368 · Cited by 1,110
The oracle problem in software testing: A survey
Barr, E. T., Harman, M., McMinn, P., Shahbaz, M., & Yoo, S. (2015) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2014.2372785 · Cited by 1,104
Finding and understanding bugs in C compilers
Yang, X., Chen, Y., Eide, E., & Regehr, J. (2011) · Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation · doi:10.1145/1993498.1993532 · Cited by 825
Zhou, J., Zhang, H., & Lo, D. (2012) · 2012 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse.2012.6227210 · Cited by 507
Zhou, X., Peng, X., Xie, T., Sun, J., Ji, C., Li, W., & Ding, D. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2018.2887384 · Cited by 410
Is the cure worse than the disease? overfitting in automated program repair
Smith, E. K., Barr, E. T., Le Goues, C., & Brun, Y. (2015) · Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2786805.2786825 · Cited by 323
Zhou, X., Peng, X., Xie, T., Sun, J., Ji, C., Liu, D., Xiang, Q., & He, C. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 27th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3338906.3338961 · Cited by 277
(2023) · doi:10.1109/sp46215.2023.10179324 · Cited by 131
BugRedux: Reproducing field failures for in-house debugging
Jin, W., & Orso, A. (2012) · 2012 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse.2012.6227168 · Cited by 122
An Empirical Study of Bugs in WebAssembly Compilers
Romano, A., Liu, X., Kwon, Y., & Wang, W. (2021) · 2021 36th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) · doi:10.1109/ase51524.2021.9678776 · Cited by 49
Diet code is healthy: simplifying programs for pre-trained models of code
Zhang, Z., Zhang, H., Shen, B., & Gu, X. (2022) · Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3540250.3549094 · Cited by 41
Search, align, and repair: data-driven feedback generation for introductory programming exercises
Wang, K., Singh, R., & Su, Z. (2018) · ACM SIGPLAN Notices · doi:10.1145/3296979.3192384 · Cited by 17
Entropy Guided Spectrum Based Bug Localization Using Statistical Language Model
Chakraborty, S., Li, Y., Irvine, M., Saha, R., & Ray, B. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.06947 · Cited by 7
“Existing bug localization techniques can be broadly classified into two categories: i) test coverage-based dynamic approaches [30, 2, 59, 14, 37, 38], and ii) pattern-based [15, 19, 18, 13] or information retrieval-based (IR) static approaches [44, 60, 48, 58].”
BackgroundNatural Is the Best: Model-Agnostic Code Simplification for Pre-trained Large Language Models
Wang, Y., Li, X., Nguyen, T. N., Wang, S., Ni, C., & Ding, L. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3643753 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Zeller, A., & Hildebrandt, R.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2002-02
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 183-200
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-3520
- 2326-3881
- OpenAlex
- W2170224888
- Cited by
- 1,079
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 74.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
