REVIEW 2 cited by
ChangeGuard: Validating Code Changes via Pairwise Learning-Guided Execution
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Code changes are an integral part of the software development process. Many code changes are meant to improve the code without changing its functional behavior, e.g., refactorings and performance improvements. Unfortunately, validating whether a code change preserves the behavior is non-trivial, particularly when the code change is performed deep inside a complex project. This paper presents ChangeGuard, an approach that uses learning-guided execution to compare the runtime behavior of a modified function. The approach is enabled by the novel concept of pairwise learning-guided execution and by a set of techniques that improve the robustness and coverage of the state-of-the-art learning-guided execution technique. Our evaluation applies ChangeGuard to a dataset of 224 manually annotated code changes from popular Python open-source projects and to three datasets of code changes obtained by applying automated code transformations. Our results show that the approach identifies semantics-changing code changes with a precision of 77.1% and a recall of 69.5%, and that it detects unexpected behavioral changes introduced by automatic code refactoring tools. In contrast, the existing regression tests of the analyzed projects miss the vast majority of semantics-changing code changes, with a recall of only 7.6%. We envision our approach being useful for detecting unintended behavioral changes early in the development process and for improving the quality of automated code transformations.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Disproving Program Equivalence with LLMs
LLM-generated probes with execution feedback find counterexamples that unit tests miss, and semantic clustering based on these probes improves code-generation evaluation.
-
Treefix: Enabling Execution with a Tree of Prefixes
By iteratively generating and refining code prefixes with an LLM, Treefix reaches 84% and 82% line coverage on two Python snippet datasets, exceeding prior learning-guided execution tools by 25 and 7 percentage points.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.