学术文献库

Various automated program repair (APR) techniques have been proposed to fix bugs automatically in the last decade. Although recent researches have made significant progress on the effectiveness and efficiency, it is still unclear how APR techniques perform with human intervention in a real debugging scenario. To bridge this gap, we conduct an extensive study to compare three state-of-the-art APR tools with manual program repair, and further investigate whether the assistance of APR tools (i.e., repair reports) can improve manual program repair. To that end, we recruit 20 participants for a controlled experiment, resulting in a total of 160 manual repair tasks and a questionnaire survey. The experiment reveals several notable observations that (1) manual program repair may be influenced by the frequency of repair actions sometimes; (2) APR tools are more efficient in terms of debugging time, while manual program repair tends to generate a correct patch with fewer attempts; (3) APR tools can further improve manual program repair regarding the number of correctly-fixed bugs, while there exists a negative impact on the patch correctness; (4) participants are used to consuming more time to identify incorrect patches, while they are still misguided easily; (5) participants are positive about the tools' repair performance, while they generally lack confidence about the usability in practice. Besides, we provide some guidelines for improving the usability of APR tools (e.g., the misleading information in reports and the observation of feedback).