Isolating Compiler Bugs by Generating Effective Witness Programs with Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.00593v3
• Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 08:46:17 GMT
• Title: Isolating Compiler Bugs by Generating Effective Witness Programs with Large Language Models
• Authors: Haoxin Tu, Zhide Zhou, He Jiang, Imam Nur Bani Yusuf, Yuxian Li, Lingxiao Jiang,
• Abstract summary: Existing compiler bug isolation approaches convert the problem into a test program mutation problem. We propose a new approach named LLM4CBI to utilize LLMs to generate effective test programs for compiler bug isolation. Compared with state-of-the-art approaches over 120 real bugs from GCC and LLVM, our evaluation demonstrates the advantages of LLM4CBI.
• Score: 10.660543763757518
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Compiler bugs pose a significant threat to safety-critical applications, and promptly as well as effectively isolating these bugs is crucial for assuring the quality of compilers. However, the limited availability of debugging information on reported bugs complicates the compiler bug isolation task. Existing compiler bug isolation approaches convert the problem into a test program mutation problem, but they are still limited by ineffective mutation strategies or high human effort requirements. Drawing inspiration from the recent progress of pre-trained Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, in code generation, we propose a new approach named LLM4CBI to utilize LLMs to generate effective test programs for compiler bug isolation. However, using LLMs directly for test program mutation may not yield the desired results due to the challenges associated with formulating precise prompts and selecting specialized prompts. To overcome the challenges, three new components are designed in LLM4CBI. First, LLM4CBI utilizes a program complexity-guided prompt production component, which leverages data and control flow analysis to identify the most valuable variables and locations in programs for mutation. Second, LLM4CBI employs a memorized prompt selection component, which adopts reinforcement learning to select specialized prompts for mutating test programs continuously. Third, a test program validation component is proposed to select specialized feedback prompts to avoid repeating the same mistakes during the mutation process. Compared with state-of-the-art approaches over 120 real bugs from GCC and LLVM, our evaluation demonstrates the advantages of LLM4CBI: It can isolate 69.70%/21.74% and 24.44%/8.92% more bugs than DiWi and RecBi within Top-1/Top-5 ranked results. We also demonstrate that the LLMs component used in LLM4CBI can be easily replaced while still achieving reasonable results.

Related papers

• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• AIME: AI System Optimization via Multiple LLM Evaluators [79.03422337674664]
  AIME is an evaluation protocol that utilizes multiple LLMs that each independently generate an evaluation on separate criteria and then combine them via concatenation. We show AIME outperforming baseline methods in code generation tasks, with up to $62%$ higher error detection rate and up to $16%$ higher success rate than a single LLM evaluation protocol on LeetCodeHard and HumanEval datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T04:03:24Z)
• Program Slicing in the Era of Large Language Models [7.990456190723922]
  Program slicing is a critical technique in software engineering, enabling developers to isolate relevant portions of code. This study investigates the application of large language models (LLMs) to both static and dynamic program slicing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T00:07:56Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [80.18342600996601]
  Large language models (LLMs) produce code that is shorter yet more complicated as compared to canonical solutions. We develop a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes that includes three categories and 12 sub-categories, and analyze the root cause for common bug types. We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code based on bug types and compiler feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal Behaviors [64.9938658716425]
  Existing evaluations of large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests face three limitations. First, existing methods often use coarse-grained of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics. Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations. Third, existing evaluations rely on large LLMs for evaluation, which can be expensive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:56:07Z)
• DebugBench: Evaluating Debugging Capability of Large Language Models [80.73121177868357]
  DebugBench is a benchmark for Large Language Models (LLMs) It covers four major bug categories and 18 minor types in C++, Java, and Python. We evaluate two commercial and four open-source models in a zero-shot scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-09T15:46:38Z)
• Testing LLMs on Code Generation with Varying Levels of Prompt Specificity [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated unparalleled prowess in mimicking human-like text generation and processing. The potential to transform natural language prompts into executable code promises a major shift in software development practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-10T23:41:41Z)
• Evaluating Diverse Large Language Models for Automatic and General Bug Reproduction [12.851941377433285]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been demonstrated to be adept at natural language processing and code generation. Our proposed technique LIBRO could successfully reproduce about one-third of all bugs in the widely used Defects4J benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T08:42:30Z)
• Towards Generating Functionally Correct Code Edits from Natural Language Issue Descriptions [11.327913840111378]
  We introduce Defects4J-NL2Fix, a dataset of 283 Java programs from the popular Defects4J dataset augmented with high-level descriptions of bug fixes. We empirically evaluate the performance of several state-of-the-art LLMs for the this task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-07T18:58:33Z)
• LEVER: Learning to Verify Language-to-Code Generation with Execution [64.36459105535]
  We propose LEVER, a simple approach to improve language-to-code generation by learning to verify the generated programs with their execution results. Specifically, we train verifiers to determine whether a program sampled from the LLMs is correct or not based on the natural language input, the program itself and its execution results. LEVER consistently improves over the base code LLMs(4.6% to 10.9% with code-davinci) and achieves new state-of-the-art results on all of them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T18:23:22Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.