The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Finding bugs is easy
Abstract
Many techniques have been developed over the years to automatically find bugs in software. Often, these techniques rely on formal methods and sophisticated program analysis. While these techniques are valuable, they can be difficult to apply, and they aren't always effective in finding real bugs.
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 Systematic Literature Review on Fault Prediction Performance in Software Engineering
Hall, T., Beecham, S., Bowes, D., Gray, D., & Counsell, S. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2011.103 · Cited by 1,154
Learning a Metric for Code Readability
Buse, R. P. L., & Weimer, W. R. (2010) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2009.70 · Cited by 396
A systematic literature review of automated feedback generation for programming exercises
Keuning, H., Jeuring, J., & Heeren, B. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/3231711 · Cited by 370
Lessons from building static analysis tools at Google
Sadowski, C., Aftandilian, E., Eagle, A., Miller-Cushon, L., & Jaspan, C. (2018) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3188720 · Cited by 242
(2020) · USENIX Security Symposium · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Hovemeyer, D., & Pugh, W.
- Venue
- Companion to the 19th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2004-10-23
- Pages
- 132-136
- OpenAlex
- W1986453394
- Cited by
- 760
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.90
- Type
- conference paper
- 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.
