Locating faults through automated predicate switching

By X. Zhang, Neelam Gupta, Rajiv Gupta. International Conference on Software Engineering, 2006

298 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Nopol: Automatic Repair of Conditional Statement Bugs in Java Programs (2018, methodology): “[18] use the term “predicate switching” and Chandra et al.”
TBar: revisiting template-based automated program repair (2019, methodology): “Therefore, researchers tried to enhance FL techniques with new techniques, such as predicate switching [71, 75] and test case purification [14, 74].”
Ask the Mutants: Mutating Faulty Programs for Fault Localization (2014, background): “Zhang et al. [34], on the other hand, change branch predicate outcomes of a failing execution at runtime to ﬁnd suspicious branch predicates.”
A Survey on Software Fault Localization (2016, background): “Predicate switching [405] [352] present a similar technique that analyzes the execution path of a failed test and alters the outcome of branches in that path to produce a successful execution.”
BugFix: A learning-based tool to assist developers in fixing bugs (2009, background): “Predicate Switching [34] attempts to isolate erroneous code by identifying predicates whose outcomes can be altered during a failing run to cause it to become passing.”
Precise Condition Synthesis for Program Repair (2016, methodology): “For each faulty method, we locate a list of potentially faulty conditional expressions using predicate switching [25].”