CONTEXT-AWARE DEBUGGING FOR CONCURRENT PROGRAMS
2017
- 366Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage366
- Downloads245
- Abstract Views121
Thesis / Dissertation Description
Concurrency faults are difficult to reproduce and localize because they usually occur under specific inputs and thread interleavings. Most existing fault localization techniques focus on sequential programs but fail to identify faulty memory access patterns across threads, which are usually the root causes of concurrency faults. Moreover, existing techniques for sequential programs cannot be adapted to identify faulty paths in concurrent programs. While concurrency fault localization techniques have been proposed to analyze passing and failing executions obtained from running a set of test cases to identify faulty access patterns, they primarily focus on using statistical analysis. We present a novel approach to fault localization using feature selection techniques from machine learning. Our insight is that the concurrency access patterns obtained from a large volume of coverage data generally constitute high dimensional data sets, yet existing statistical analysis techniques for fault localization are usually applied to low dimensional data sets. Each additional failing or passing run can provide more diverse information, which can help localize faulty concurrency access patterns in code. The patterns with maximum feature diversity information can point to the most suspicious pattern. We then apply data mining technique and identify the interleaving patterns that are occurred most frequently and provide the possible faulty paths. We also evaluate the effectiveness of fault localization using test suites generated from different test adequacy criteria. We have evaluated Cadeco on 10 real-world multi-threaded Java applications. Results indicate that Cadeco outperforms state-of-the-art approaches for localizing concurrency faults.
Bibliographic Details
University of Kentucky Libraries
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know