Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1711.04030

Ocasta: Clustering Configuration Settings For Error Recovery

Zhen Huang·David Lie
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Effective machine-aided diagnosis and repair of configuration errors continues to elude computer systems designers. Most of the literature targets errors that can be attributed to a single erroneous configuration setting. However, a recent study found that a significant amount of configuration errors require fixing more than one setting together. To address this limitation, Ocasta statistically clusters dependent configuration settings based on the application's accesses to its configuration settings and utilizes the extracted clustering of configuration settings to fix configuration errors involving more than one configuration settings. Ocasta treats applications as black-boxes and only relies on the ability to observe application accesses to their configuration settings. We collected traces of real application usage from 24 Linux and 5 Windows desktops computers and found that Ocasta is able to correctly identify clusters with 88.6% accuracy. To demonstrate the effectiveness of Ocasta, we evaluated it on 16 real-world configuration errors of 11 Linux and Windows applications. Ocasta is able to successfully repair all evaluated configuration errors in 11 minutes on average and only requires the user to examine an average of 3 screenshots of the output of the application to confirm that the error is repaired. A user study we conducted shows that Ocasta is easy to use by both expert and non-expert users and is more efficient than manual configuration error troubleshooting.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.LGcs.OS

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Zhen Huang, David Lie. 2017-11-02. Ocasta: Clustering Configuration Settings For Error Recovery. https://doi.org/10.1109/dsn.2014.51

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗