Artifact EvaluationASE 2021

Call for Papers

This track accepts submissions from:

• Any member of the SE community wishing to document artifact creation or usage
• Authors of papers accepted in any of the tracks of ASE 2021 who wish to submit artifacts associated with those papers to the ASE Artifact Track.
• Authors of any prior SE work (published at ASE or elsewhere) who wish to submit an artifact for evaluation as a candidate replicated or reproduced.

If the artifact is accepted, authors will be invited to give lightning talks on this work at ASE’21. Also, we will do our best to work with the IEEE Xplore and ACM Portal administrator to add badges to the electronic versions of the authors’ paper(s).

Accepted artifact(s) will receive the following badges on the front page of the authors’ paper and in the proceedings.

Available	Reusable	Reproduced	Replicated
Open Research Objects (ORO)	Research Objects Reviewed (ROR)	Results Reproduced (ROR-R)	Results Replicated (RER)
Placed on a publicly accessible archival repository. A DOI or link to this persistent repository along with a unique identifier for the object is provided. Artifacts have not been formally evaluated.	Available + Artifacts are very carefully documented and well-structured, consistent, complete, exercisable, and include appropriate evidence of verification and validation to the extent that reuse and repurposing is facilitated. In particular, norms and standards of the research community for artifacts of this type are strictly adhered to.	The main results of the paper have been obtained in a subsequent study by a person or team other than the authors, using, in part, artifacts provided by the original authors. Also, artifacts are very carefully documented and well-structured, consistent, complete, exercisable, and include appropriate evidence of verification and validation	The main results of the paper have been independently obtained in a subsequent study by a person or team other than the authors, without the use of author-supplied artifacts.

Details of the Badges

Available

This badge is applied to papers in which associated artifacts have been made permanently available for retrieval.

• We consider temporary drives (e.g., Dropbox, Google Drive) to be non-persistent, same as individual/institutional websites of the submitting authors, as these are prone to changes.
• We ask that authors use Zenodo as this service is persistent and also offers the possibility to assign a DOI.
• Artifacts do not need to have been formally evaluated in order for an article to receive this badge. In addition, they need not be complete in the sense described above. They simply need to be relevant to the study and add value beyond the text in the article. Such artifacts could be something as simple as the data from which the figures are drawn, or as complex as a complete software system under study.

Reusable

The artifacts must meet the following requirements.

• documented: At minimum, an inventory of artifacts is included, and sufficient description provided to enable the artifacts to be exercised.
• consistent: The artifacts are relevant to the associated paper, and contribute in some inherent way to the generation of its main results.
• complete: To the extent possible, all components relevant to the paper in question are included. (Proprietary artifacts need not be included. If they are required to exercise the package then this should be documented, along with instructions on how to obtain them. Proxies for proprietary data should be included so as to demonstrate the analysis.)
• exercisable: Included scripts and / or software used to generate the results in the associated paper can be successfully executed, and

Authors are strongly encouraged to target their artifact submissions for Reusable as the purpose of artifact badges is, among other things, to facilitate reuse and repurposing, which may not be achieved at the Functional level.

Reproduced

This badge is applied to papers in which the main results of the paper have been successfully obtained by a person or team other than the original authors of the work, with, at least in part, artifacts provided by the original authors.

Example: If Asha published a paper with artifacts in 2019, and Tim published a replication in 2020 using the artifacts, then Asha can now apply for the Replicated badge on the 2019 paper.

Replicated

This badge is applied to papers in which the main results of the paper have been successfully obtained by a person or team other than the author, but without any artifacts provided by the original authors.

Example: If Janet published a paper in 2018 with no artifacts, and Miles published a paper with artifacts in 2020 that independently obtained the main result, then Janet can apply for the Reproduced badge on the 2018 paper.

Papers with such badges contain reusable products that other researchers can use to bootstrap their own research. Experience shows that such papers earn increased citations and greater prestige in the research community. Artifacts of interest include (but are not limited to) the following.

• Software, which are implementations of systems or algorithms potentially useful in other studies.
• Data repositories, which are data (e.g., logging data, system traces, survey raw data) that can be used for multiple software engineering approaches.
• Frameworks, which are tools and services illustrating new approaches to software engineering that could be used by other researchers in different contexts.

This list is not exhaustive, so the authors are asked to email the chairs before submitting if their proposed artifact is not on this list.

Submission

Authors are to our HotCRP website https://ase20201-artifact-evaluation.hotcrp.com

Note that that there are two separate separate submission procedures: - One for available and reusable artifacts - Another for replicated and reproduced badges

Submission for available and reusable artifacts

All submittors must make their repositories available using the following steps.

• Create a Github repo.
• Register the repo at Zenodo.org. For details on that process, see https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code.
• Make a release at Github, at which time Zenodo will automatically grab a copy of that repo and issue a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) e.g. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4308746.
• Submit that DOI to us.

Your Github repo should have documentation files explaining how to obtain the artifact package, how to unpack the artifact, how to get started, and how to use the artifacts in sufficient detail. The artifact submission must describe only the technicalities of the artifacts and uses of the artifact that are not already described in the paper. The submission should contain the following documents (in markdown plain text format).

• A README.md main file describing what the artifact does and where it can be obtained (with hidden links and access password if necessary).
• A LICENSE.md file describing the distribution rights. Note that to score “available” or higher, then that license needs to be some form of open source license.
• An INSTALL.md file with installation instructions. These instructions should include notes illustrating a very basic usage example or a method to test the installation. This could be, for instance, information on what output to expect that confirms that the code is installed and working; and that the code is doing something interesting and useful. IMPORTANT, there should be a clear description of how to reproduce the results presented in the paper.
• A copy of the accepted paper in pdf format.

Authors may update their research artifacts after submission only for changes requested by reviewers in the rebuttal phase. To update artifacts: (1) Go to Github; (2) Make your changes; (3) Make a new release; (4) Make a comment in HotCrp that “in response to comment XYZ we have made a new release that addresses that issues as follows: ABC”

Submission for replicated and reproduced badges

Submit a one page (max) pdf documenting the maturity of the artifact. This needs to include:

• TITLE: A (Partial)? (Replication|Reproduction) of XYZ. Please add the term partial to your title if only some of the original work could be replicated/reproduced.
• WHO: name the original authors (and paper) and the authors that performed the replication/reproduction. Include contact information (emails). Mark one author as the corresponding author.
• IMPORTANT: include also a web link to a publically available URL directory containing (a) the original paper (that is being reproduced) and (b) any subsequent paper(s)/documents/reports that do the reproduction.
• IMPORTANT: include also a web link to a publically available URL directory containing (a) the original paper (that is being reproduced) and (b) any subsequent paper(s)/documents/reports that do the reproduction.
• WHAT: describe the “thing” being replicated/reproduced;
• WHY: clearly state why that “thing” is interesting/important;
• PLATFORM: being the operating system where this artifact was mostly developed on;
• HOW: say how it was done first;
• WHERE: describe the replication/reproduction. If the replication/reproduction was only partial, then explain what parts could be achieved or had to be missed.
• DISCUSSION: What aspects of this “thing” made it easier/harder to replicate/reproduce. What are the lessons learned from this work that would enable more replication/reproduction in the future for other kinds of tasks or other kinds of research.

Review

The ASE artifact evaluation track uses a single-blind review process. All artifacts will receive two reviews.

Two PC members will review each abstract, possibly reaching out to the authors of the abstract or original paper. Abstracts will be ranked as follows.

• If PC members do not find sufficient substantive evidence for replication/reproduction, the abstract will be rejected.
• Any abstract that is judged to be unnecessarily critical of prior work will be rejected (*).
• The remaining abstracts will be sorted according to (a) interestingness and (b) correctness.
• The top ranked abstracts will be invited to give lightning talks.

(*) Our goal is to foster a positive environment that supports and rewards researchers for conducting replications and reproductions. To that end, we require that all abstracts and presentations pay due respect to the work they are reproducing/replicating. Criticism of prior work is acceptable only as part of a balanced and substantive discussion of prior accomplishments.

Note that prior to reviewing, there may be some interactions to handle setup and install. Before the actual evaluation reviewers will check the integrity of the artifact and look for any possible setup problems that may prevent it from being properly evaluated (e.g., corrupted or missing files, VM won’t start, immediate crashes on the simplest example, etc.). The Evaluation Committee may contact the authors to request clarifications on the basic installation and start-up procedures or to resolve simple installation problems. Artifact evaluation can be rejected for artifacts whose configuration and installation takes an undue amount of time.

Accepted Papers

	Title
	A Partial Replication of "A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II" Artifact Evaluation Kewen Peng
	A Replication of Adversarial Attacks to API Recommender Systems: Time to Wake Up and Smell the Coffee? Artifact Evaluation Phuong T. Nguyen, Claudio Di Sipio, Juri Di Rocco, Davide Di Ruscio, Massimiliano Di Penta Pre-print
	A Replication of Experiment on Finding Higher-order Mutants. Artifact Evaluation Xiao Ling
	A Replication of graph edit distance as a quadratic assignmentproblem Artifact Evaluation Andre Lustosa
	A Replication of Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update Artifact Evaluation Andre Lustosa
	A Replication of LIME Artifact Evaluation Xiao Ling
	A Replication of XGBoost Artifact Evaluation Xiao Ling
	A Reproduction of Ref-Finder in a Refactoring Study Artifact Evaluation Rahul Yedida
	Artifact for "JSTAR: JavaScript Specification Type Analyzer using Refinement" Artifact Evaluation Jihyeok Park, Seungmin An, Shin Wonho, Yusung Sim, Sukyoung Ryu
	ASE: A Value Set Decision Procedure for Symbolic Execution Artifact Evaluation Alireza S. Abyaneh, Christoph Kirsch
	Automated Verification of Go Programs via Bounded Model Checking Artifact Evaluation Nicolas Dilley, Julien Lange
	CiFi: Versatile Analysis of Class and Field Immutability Artifact Evaluation Tobias Roth, Dominik Helm, Michael Reif, Mira Mezini
	Context Debloating for Object-Sensitive Pointer Analysis Artifact Evaluation Dongjie He, Jingbo Lu, Jingling Xue
	CorbFuzz: Checking Browser Security Policies with Fuzzing Artifact Evaluation Chaofan Shou, Ismet Burak Kadron, Qi Su, Tevfik Bultan
	Data-Driven Design and Evaluation of SMT Meta-Solving Strategies: Balancing Performance, Accuracy, and Cost Artifact Evaluation Malte Mues, Falk Howar
	Deep-GUI: Black-box GUI Input Generation with Deep Learning Artifact Evaluation Faraz YazdaniBanafsheDaragh, Sam Malek
	DeepMetis: Augmenting a Deep Learning Test Set to Increase its Mutation Score Artifact Evaluation Vincenzo Riccio, Nargiz Humbatova, Gunel Jahangirova, Paolo Tonella
	Discussion Artifact Evaluation
	Distribution Models for Falsification and Verification of DNNs Artifact Evaluation Felipe Toledo, David Shriver, Sebastian Elbaum, Matthew B Dwyer Pre-print
	Efficient SMT-Based Model Checking for Signal Temporal Logic Artifact Evaluation Jia Lee, Geunyeol Yu, Kyungmin Bae
	Faster Mutation Analysis with Fewer Processes and Smaller Overheads Artifact Evaluation Bo Wang, Sirui Lu, Yingfei Xiong, Feng Liu
	Improving Test Case Generation for REST APIs Through Hierarchical Clustering Artifact Evaluation Dimitri Stallenberg, Mitchell Olsthoorn, Annibale Panichella DOI Pre-print
	ISPY: Automatic Issue-Solution Pair Extraction from Community Live Chats Artifact Evaluation Lin Shi, Ziyou Jiang, Ye Yang, Xiao Chen, YuMin Zhang, Fangwen Mu, Hanzhi Jiang, Qing Wang
	Keynote Artifact Evaluation Dirk Beyer
	Most reused artefacts Artifact Evaluation
	Nekara: Generalized Concurrency Testing Artifact Evaluation Udit Agarwal, Pantazis Deligiannis, Cheng Huang, Kumseok Jung, Akash Lal, Immad Naseer, Matthew J. Parkinson, Arun Thangamani, Jyothi Vedurada, Yunpeng Xiao
	On the Real-World Effectiveness of Static Bug Detectors at Finding Null Pointer Exceptions Artifact Evaluation David A Tomassi, Cindy Rubio-González
	Opening Artifact Evaluation A: Aldeida Aleti
	Performance Testing for Cloud Computing with Dependent Data Bootstrapping Artifact Evaluation Sen He, Tianyi Liu, Palden Lama, Jaewoo Lee, In Kee Kim, Wei Wang
	PyExplainer: Explaining the Predictions of Just-In-Time Defect Models Artifact Evaluation Chanathip Pornprasit, Kla Tantithamthavorn, Jirayus Jiarpakdee, Michael Fu, Patanamon Thongtanunam
	Restoring the Executability of Jupyter Notebooks by Automatic Upgrade of Deprecated APIs Artifact Evaluation Chenguang Zhu, Ripon Saha, Mukul Prasad, Sarfraz Khurshid
	Reuse graphs Artifact Evaluation P: Tim Menzies
	Reuse of Perceval: Software Project Data at Your Will Artifact Evaluation Xueqi Yang
	SATune: A Study-Driven Auto-Tuning Approach for Configurable Software Verification Tools Artifact Evaluation Ugur Koc, Austin Mordahl, Shiyi Wei, Jeffrey S. Foster, Adam Porter
	State synchronisation in model-based testing Artifact Evaluation Uraz Cengiz Türker, Robert Hierons, Mohammad Reza Mousavi, Ivan Tyukin
	Testing Your Question Answering Software via Asking Recursively Artifact Evaluation Songqiang Chen, Shuo Jin, Xiaoyuan Xie
	Thinking Like a Developer? Comparing the Attention of Humans with Neural Models of Code Artifact Evaluation Matteo Paltenghi, Michael Pradel
	UI Test Migration Across Mobile Platforms Artifact Evaluation Saghar Talebipour, Yixue Zhao, Luka Dojcilovic, Chenggang Li, Nenad Medvidović
	Understanding and Detecting Performance Bugs in Markdown Compilers Artifact Evaluation Penghui Li, Yinxi Liu, Wei Meng