Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2009.10174

Recommending Stack Overflow Posts for Fixing Runtime Exceptions using Failure Scenario Matching

Sonal Mahajan·Negarsadat Abolhassani·Mukul R. Prasad
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Using online Q&A forums, such as Stack Overflow (SO), for guidance to resolve program bugs, among other development issues, is commonplace in modern software development practice. Runtime exceptions (RE) is one such important class of bugs that is actively discussed on SO. In this work we present a technique and prototype tool called MAESTRO that can automatically recommend an SO post that is most relevant to a given Java RE in a developer's code. MAESTRO compares the exception-generating program scenario in the developer's code with that discussed in an SO post and returns the post with the closest match. To extract and compare the exception scenario effectively, MAESTRO first uses the answer code snippets in a post to implicate a subset of lines in the post's question code snippet as responsible for the exception and then compares these lines with the developer's code in terms of their respective Abstract Program Graph (APG) representations. The APG is a simplified and abstracted derivative of an abstract syntax tree, proposed in this work, that allows an effective comparison of the functionality embodied in the high-level program structure, while discarding many of the low-level syntactic or semantic differences. We evaluate MAESTRO on a benchmark of 78 instances of Java REs extracted from the top 500 Java projects on GitHub and show that MAESTRO can return either a highly relevant or somewhat relevant SO post corresponding to the exception instance in 71% of the cases, compared to relevant posts returned in only 8% - 44% instances, by four competitor tools based on state-of-the-art techniques. We also conduct a user experience study of MAESTRO with 10 Java developers, where the participants judge MAESTRO reporting a highly relevant or somewhat relevant post in 80% of the instances. In some cases the post is judged to be even better than the one manually found by the participant.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sonal Mahajan, Negarsadat Abolhassani, Mukul R. Prasad. 2020-09-21. Recommending Stack Overflow Posts for Fixing Runtime Exceptions using Failure Scenario Matching. https://doi.org/10.1145/3368089.3409764

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↗