Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2311.13517

Learning-Based Relaxation of Completeness Requirements for Data Entry Forms

Abstract

Data entry forms use completeness requirements to specify the fields that are required or optional to fill for collecting necessary information from different types of users. However, some required fields may not be applicable for certain types of users anymore. Nevertheless, they may still be incorrectly marked as required in the form; we call such fields obsolete required fields. Since obsolete required fields usually have not-null validation checks before submitting the form, users have to enter meaningless values in such fields in order to complete the form submission. These meaningless values threaten the quality of the filled data. To avoid users filling meaningless values, existing techniques usually rely on manually written rules to identify the obsolete required fields and relax their completeness requirements. However, these techniques are ineffective and costly. In this paper, we propose LACQUER, a learning-based automated approach for relaxing the completeness requirements of data entry forms. LACQUER builds Bayesian Network models to automatically learn conditions under which users had to fill meaningless values. To improve its learning ability, LACQUER identifies the cases where a required field is only applicable for a small group of users, and uses SMOTE, an oversampling technique, to generate more instances on such fields for effectively mining dependencies on them. Our experimental results show that LACQUER can accurately relax the completeness requirements of required fields in data entry forms with precision values ranging between 0.76 and 0.90 on different datasets. LACQUER can prevent users from filling 20% to 64% of meaningless values, with negative predictive values between 0.72 and 0.91. Furthermore, LACQUER is efficient; it takes at most 839 ms to predict the completeness requirement of an instance.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hichem Belgacem, Xiaochen Li, Domenico Bianculli, Lionel C. Briand. 2023-12-13. Learning-Based Relaxation of Completeness Requirements for Data Entry Forms. https://doi.org/10.1145/3635708

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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