Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 162

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving bug detection via context-based code representation learning and attention-based neural networks

Open access
Li, Yi, Wang, Shaohua, Nguyen, Tien N., Van Nguyen, Son·2019·Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages

Abstract

Bug detection has been shown to be an effective way to help developers in detecting bugs early, thus, saving much effort and time in software development process. Recently, deep learning-based bug detection approaches have gained successes over the traditional machine learning-based approaches, the rule-based program analysis approaches, and mining-based approaches. However, they are still limited in detecting bugs that involve multiple methods and suffer high rate of false positives. In this paper, we propose a combination approach with the use of contexts and attention neural network to overcome those limitations. We propose to use as the global context the Program Dependence Graph (PDG) and Data Flow Graph (DFG) to connect the method under investigation with the other relevant methods that might contribute to the buggy code. The global context is complemented by the local context extracted from the path on the AST built from the method’s body. The use of PDG and DFG enables our model to reduce the false positive rate, while to complement for the potential reduction in recall, we make use of the attention neural network mechanism to put more weights on the buggy paths in the source code. That is, the paths that are similar to the buggy paths will be ranked higher, thus, improving the recall of our model. We have conducted several experiments to evaluate our approach on a very large dataset with +4.973M methods in 92 different project versions. The results show that our tool can have a relative improvement up to 160% on F-score when comparing with the state-of-the-art bug detection approaches. Our tool can detect 48 true bugs in the list of top 100 reported bugs, which is 24 more true bugs when comparing with the baseline approaches. We also reported that our representation is better suitable for bug detection and relatively improves over the other representations up to 206% in accuracy.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3360588

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 162

Metadata

Authors
Li, Y., Wang, S., Nguyen, T. N., & Van Nguyen, S.
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages
Published
2019-10-10
Volume
3
Issue
OOPSLA
Pages
1-30
ISSN
2475-1421 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2979566992
Cited by
162
References
3
FWCI
19.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improving bug detection via context-based code representation learning and attention-based neural networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/3360588
The paper
Li, Y., Wang, S., Nguyen, T. N., & Van Nguyen, S. (2019). Improving bug detection via context-based code representation learning and attention-based neural networks. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3360588

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.