Nuances are the Key: Unlocking ChatGPT to Find Failure-Inducing Tests with Differential Prompting
April 23, 2023 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐ International Conference on Automated Software Engineering
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Tsz-On Li, Wenxi Zong, Yibo Wang, Haoye Tian, Ying Wang, Shing-Chi Cheung, Jeff Kramer
arXiv ID
2304.11686
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Citations
70
Venue
International Conference on Automated Software Engineering
Last Checked
3 months ago
Abstract
Automatically detecting software failures is an important task and a longstanding challenge. It requires finding failure-inducing test cases whose test input can trigger the software's fault, and constructing an automated oracle to detect the software's incorrect behaviors. Recent advancement of large language models (LLMs) motivates us to study how far this challenge can be addressed by ChatGPT, a state-of-the-art LLM. Unfortunately, our study shows that ChatGPT has a low probability (28.8%) of finding correct failure-inducing test cases for buggy programs. A possible reason is that finding failure-inducing test cases requires analyzing the subtle code differences between a buggy program and its correct version. When these two versions have similar syntax, ChatGPT is weak at recognizing subtle code differences. Our insight is that ChatGPT's performance can be substantially enhanced when ChatGPT is guided to focus on the subtle code difference. We have an interesting observation that ChatGPT is effective in inferring the intended behaviors of a buggy program. The intended behavior can be leveraged to synthesize programs, in order to make the subtle code difference between a buggy program and its correct version (i.e., the synthesized program) explicit. Driven by this observation, we propose a novel approach that synergistically combines ChatGPT and differential testing to find failure-inducing test cases. We evaluate our approach on Quixbugs (a benchmark of buggy programs), and compare it with state-of-the-art baselines, including direct use of ChatGPT and Pynguin. The experimental result shows that our approach has a much higher probability (77.8%) of finding correct failure-inducing test cases, 2.7X as the best baseline.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
๐ Similar Papers
In the same crypt โ Software Engineering
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
GraphCodeBERT: Pre-training Code Representations with Data Flow
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
DeepTest: Automated Testing of Deep-Neural-Network-driven Autonomous Cars
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Microservices: yesterday, today, and tomorrow
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Devign: Effective Vulnerability Identification by Learning Comprehensive Program Semantics via Graph Neural Networks
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness
Died the same way โ ๐ป Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted