Who Judges the Judge: An Empirical Study on Online Judge Tests

被引:3
作者
Liu, Kaibo [1 ]
Han, Yudong [1 ]
Zhang, Jie M. [2 ]
Chen, Zhenpeng [3 ]
Sarro, Federica [3 ]
Harman, Mark [3 ]
Huang, Gang [4 ]
Ma, Yun [1 ]
机构
[1] Peking Univ, Beijing, Peoples R China
[2] Kings Coll London, London, England
[3] UCL, London, England
[4] Peking Univ, Natl Key Lab Data Space Technol & Syst, Beijing, Peoples R China
来源
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 32ND ACM SIGSOFT INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON SOFTWARE TESTING AND ANALYSIS, ISSTA 2023 | 2023年
关键词
Online judge platform; software testing; test assessment;
D O I
10.1145/3597926.3598060
中图分类号
TP31 [计算机软件];
学科分类号
081202 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Online Judge platforms play a pivotal role in education, competitive programming, recruitment, career training, and large language model training. They rely on predefined test suites to judge the correctness of submitted solutions. It is therefore important that the solution judgement is reliable and free from potentially misleading false positives (i.e., incorrect solutions that are judged as correct). In this paper, we conduct an empirical study of 939 coding problems with 541,552 solutions, all of which are judged to be correct according to the test suites used by the platform, finding that 43.4% of the problems include false positive solutions (3,440 bugs are revealed in total). We also find that test suites are, nevertheless, of high quality according to widely-studied test effectiveness measurements: 88.2% of false positives have perfect (100%) line coverage, 78.9% have perfect branch coverage, and 32.5% have a perfect mutation score. Our findings indicate that more work is required to weed out false positive solutions and to further improve test suite effectiveness. We have released the detected false positive solutions and the generated test inputs to facilitate future research.
引用
收藏
页码:334 / 346
页数:13
相关论文
共 77 条
  • [51] SEMCLUSTER: Clustering of Imperative Programming Assignments Based on Quantitative Semantic Features
    Perry, David M.
    Kim, Dohyeong
    Samanta, Roopsha
    Zhang, Xiangyu
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 40TH ACM SIGPLAN CONFERENCE ON PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION (PLDI '19), 2019, : 860 - 873
  • [52] Does mutation testing improve testing practices?
    Petrovic, Goran
    Ivankovic, Marko
    Fraser, Gordon
    Just, Rene
    [J]. 2021 IEEE/ACM 43RD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING (ICSE 2021), 2021, : 910 - 921
  • [53] PITest contributors, 2022, Mutation operators
  • [54] Is 100% Test Coverage a Reasonable Requirement? Lessons Learned from a Space Software Project
    Prause, Christian R.
    Werner, Juergen
    Hornig, Kay
    Bosecker, Sascha
    Kuhrmann, Marco
    [J]. PRODUCT-FOCUSED SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT (PROFES 2017), 2017, 10611 : 351 - 367
  • [55] Revilla M. A., 2008, Olympiads Inf., V2, P131
  • [56] Mutation testing in the wild: findings from GitHub
    Sanchez, Ana B.
    Delgado-Perez, Pedro
    Medina-Bulo, Inmaculada
    Segura, Sergio
    [J]. EMPIRICAL SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, 2022, 27 (06)
  • [57] Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation
    Schober, Patrick
    Boer, Christa
    Schwarte, Lothar A.
    [J]. ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2018, 126 (05) : 1763 - 1768
  • [58] Context-Aware and Data-Driven Feedback Generation for Programming Assignments
    Song, Dowon
    Lee, Woosuk
    Oh, Hakjoo
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 29TH ACM JOINT MEETING ON EUROPEAN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING CONFERENCE AND SYMPOSIUM ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF SOFTWARE ENGINEERING (ESEC/FSE '21), 2021, : 328 - 340
  • [59] A Survey on Data-Flow Testing
    Su, Ting
    Wu, Ke
    Miao, Weikai
    Pu, Geguang
    He, Jifeng
    Chen, Yuting
    Su, Zhendong
    [J]. ACM COMPUTING SURVEYS, 2017, 50 (01)
  • [60] Improving Machine Translation Systems via Isotopic Replacement
    Sun, Zeyu
    Zhang, Jie M.
    Xiong, Yingfei
    Harman, Mark
    Papadakis, Mike
    Zhang, Lu
    [J]. 2022 ACM/IEEE 44TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING (ICSE 2022), 2022, : 1181 - 1192