5 citations · 8 across the 8 of their papers we have counts for
7 papers · 1 filter
SemaDiff: Identifying Semantic-Changing Commits with Generated Code and Tests
Maha Ayub, Michael Konstantinou, Ahmed Khanfir +2
Distinguishing semantic-preserving commits from changing ones remains an open challenge in software repository mining. While existing approaches detect refactoring commits accurate…
Intent-Based Mutation Testing: From Naturally Written Programming Intents to Mutants
Asma Hamidi, Ahmed Khanfir, Mike Papadakis
This paper presents intent-based mutation testing, a testing approach that generates mutations by changing the programming intents that are implemented in the programs under test.…
Round-Trip Mutation Testing: Translating Code to Natural Language Intent and back
Asma Hamidi, Cedric Richter, Ahmed Khanfir +1
This paper presents Round-Trip Mutation Testing (RTM), a novel approach that generates mutants from LLM mistranslations between a program code and its intent. Leveraging the genera…
Efficient Mutation Testing via Pre-Trained Language Models
Ahmed Khanfir, Renzo Degiovanni, Mike Papadakis +1
Mutation testing is an established fault-based testing technique. It operates by seeding faults into the programs under test and asking developers to write tests that reveal these…
CodeBERT-nt: code naturalness via CodeBERT
Ahmed Khanfir, Matthieu Jimenez, Mike Papadakis +1
Much of software-engineering research relies on the naturalness of code, the fact that code, in small code snippets, is repetitive and can be predicted using statistical language m…
Syntactic Vs. Semantic similarity of Artificial and Real Faults in Mutation Testing Studies
Milos Ojdanic, Aayush Garg, Ahmed Khanfir +3
Fault seeding is typically used in controlled studies to evaluate and compare test techniques. Central to these techniques lies the hypothesis that artificially seeded faults invol…