comparative causality explaining the differences between
play

Comparative Causality: Explaining the Differences Between - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 12, 2023 •188 likes •1.41k views

Comparative Causality: Explaining the Differences Between Executions William N. Sumner Xiangyu Zhang {wsumner,xyzhang} @ cs.purdue.edu ICSE 2013 22 May 2013 Background Debugging requires understanding how a program behaves. Background

  1. Example – Altered Meaning Buggy Trial Correct 1)x ← input() x ← 0 x ← 1 2)y ← input() y ← 2 y ← 1 3)z ← input() z ← 6 z ← 3 4)if y>1 & z<6: if False: if False: 5) y ← 5 6)else: y ← y+1 else: y ← 3 else: y ← 2 7)print(y) print(3) print(2)

  2. Example – Altered Meaning Buggy Trial Correct 1)x ← input() x ← 0 x ← 1 2)y ← input() y ← 2 y ← 2 y ← 2 3)z ← input() z ← 6 z ← 3 4)if y>1 & z<6: if False: if False: 5) y ← 5 6)else: y ← y+1 else: y ← 3 else: y ← 2 7)print(y) print(3) print(2)

  3. Example – Altered Meaning Buggy Trial Correct 1)x ← input() x ← 0 x ← 1 x ← 1 2)y ← input() y ← 2 y ← 2 y ← 2 3)z ← input() z ← 6 z ← 3 z ← 3 4)if y>1 & z<6: if False: if False: 5) y ← 5 6)else: y ← y+1 else: y ← 3 else: y ← 2 7)print(y) print(3) print(2)

  4. Example – Altered Meaning Buggy Trial Correct 1)x ← input() x ← 0 x ← 1 x ← 1 2)y ← input() y ← 2 y ← 2 y ← 2 3)z ← input() z ← 6 z ← 3 z ← 3 4)if y>1 & z<6: if False: if True: if False: 5) y ← 5 y ← 5 6)else: y ← y+1 else: y ← 3 else: y ← 2 7)print(y) print(3) print(5) print(2)

  5. Example – Altered Meaning Buggy Trial Correct 1)x ← input() x ← 0 x ← 1 x ← 1 2)y ← input() y ← 2 y ← 2 y ← 2 3)z ← input() z ← 6 z ← 3 z ← 3 4)if y>1 & z<6: if False: if True: if False: 5) y ← 5 y ← 5 6)else: y ← y+1 else: y ← 3 else: y ← 2 7)print(y) print(3) print(5) print(2) ● New control flow unlike original runs ● Occurs in large portion of real bugs

  6. Confounding of Explanations Behavior not found in original executions: ● includes irrelevant information ● excludes necessary information

  7. Confounding of Explanations Behavior not found in original executions: ● includes irrelevant information ● excludes necessary information Solution: Dual Slicing ● Identify & extract execution differences relevant to the failure – Those that differ across executions

  8. Confounding of Explanations Behavior not found in original executions: ● includes irrelevant information ● excludes necessary information Solution: Dual Slicing ● Identify & extract execution differences relevant to the failure – Those that differ across executions ● Run trials on the extracted program

  9. Dual Slicing ● A slice of two executions at once – Includes dependences that differ across executions – Skips dependences that are the same 1)x ← 0 1)x ← 1 2)y ← 1 2)y ← 1 3)print(x+y) 3)print(x+y)

  10. Dual Slicing ● A slice of two executions at once – Includes dependences that differ across executions – Skips dependences that are the same 1 1)x ← 0 1)x ← 1 0 2 2)y ← 1 2)y ← 1 1 3)print(x+y) 3)print(x+y) 3

  11. Dual Slicing ● A slice of two executions at once – Includes dependences that differ across executions – Skips dependences that are the same 1 1 1)x ← 0 1)x ← 1 0 2 2)y ← 1 2)y ← 1 2 1 1 1 3)print(x+y) 3)print(x+y) 3 3

  12. Dual Slicing ● A slice of two executions at once – Includes dependences that differ across executions – Skips dependences that are the same 1 1 1 1)x ← 0 1)x ← 1 0 2 2)y ← 1 2 2)y ← 1 2 1 1 1 3)print(x+y) 3)print(x+y) 3 3 3

  13. Dual Slicing ● A slice of two executions at once – Includes dependences that differ across executions – Skips dependences that are the same 1 1 1 1)x ← 0 1)x ← 1 0 2 2)y ← 1 0 2 1 2)y ← 1 2 1 1 1 3)print(x+y) 3)print(x+y) 3 3 3

  14. Dual Slicing Buggy Correct 1)x ← input() x ← 0 x ← 1 2)y ← input() y ← 2 y ← 1 3)z ← input() z ← 6 z ← 3 4)if y>1 & z<6: if False: if False: 5) y ← 5 6)else: y ← y+1 else: y ← 3 else: y ← 2 7)print(y) print(3) print(2) 7 ● Identify differences affecting the failure

  15. Dual Slicing Buggy Correct 1)x ← input() x ← 0 x ← 1 2)y ← input() y ← 2 y ← 1 3)z ← input() z ← 6 z ← 3 4)if y>1 & z<6: if False: if False: 5) y ← 5 6 6)else: y ← y+1 else: y ← 3 else: y ← 2 7)print(y) print(3) print(2) 7 ● Identify differences affecting the failure

  16. Dual Slicing Buggy Correct 1)x ← input() x ← 0 x ← 1 2 2)y ← input() y ← 2 y ← 1 3)z ← input() z ← 6 z ← 3 4)if y>1 & z<6: if False: if False: 5) y ← 5 6 6)else: y ← y+1 else: y ← 3 else: y ← 2 7)print(y) print(3) print(2) 7 ● Identify differences affecting the failure

  17. Dual Slicing Buggy Correct 1)x ← input() x ← 0 x ← 1 2 2)y ← input() y ← 2 y ← 1 3)z ← input() z ← 6 z ← 3 4)if y>1 & z<6: if False: if False: 5) y ← 5 6 6)else: y ← y+1 else: y ← 3 else: y ← 2 7)print(y) print(3) print(2) 7 Extract 2)y ← input() 6)y ← y+1 7)print(y)

  18. Example – Extracted Meaning Buggy Trial Correct y ← 2 y ← 1 2)y ← input() y ← 3 y ← 2 6)y ← y+1 print(3) print(2) 7)print(y)

  19. Example – Extracted Meaning Buggy Trial Correct y ← 2 y ← 2 y ← 2 2)y ← input() y ← 3 y ← 2 6)y ← y+1 print(3) print(2) 7)print(y)

  20. Example – Extracted Meaning Buggy Trial Correct y ← 2 y ← 2 y ← 2 2)y ← input() y ← 3 y ← 3 y ← 2 6)y ← y+1 print(3) print(3) print(2) 7)print(y) Trial can now correctly blame y

  21. Data Confounding Buggy Trial Correct 1)x ← [0,1,2,3] x ← … x ← … 2)y ← input() y ← 2 y ← 1 3)z ← input() z ← 3 z ← 2 4)x[z] ← 5 x[3] ← 5 x[2] ← 5 5)print(x[y]) print(x[2]) print(x[1]) 2 1 ● Control flow is not the only source of confounding

  22. Data Confounding Buggy Trial Correct 1)x ← [0,1,2,3] x ← … x ← … 2)y ← input() y ← 2 y ← 1 3)z ← input() z ← 3 z ← 2 4)x[z] ← 5 x[3] ← 5 x[2] ← 5 5)print(x[y]) print(x[2]) print(x[1]) 2 1 What should we blame here?

  23. Data Confounding Buggy Trial Correct 1)x ← [0,1,2,3] x ← … x ← … 2)y ← input() y ← 2 y ← 1 3)z ← input() z ← 3 z ← 2 4)x[z] ← 5 x[3] ← 5 x[2] ← 5 5)print(x[y]) print(x[2]) print(x[1]) 2 1

  24. Data Confounding Buggy Trial Correct 1)x ← [0,1,2,3] x ← … x ← … 2)y ← input() y ← 2 y ← 2 y ← 1 3)z ← input() z ← 3 z ← 2 z ← 2 4)x[z] ← 5 x[3] ← 5 x[2] ← 5 5)print(x[y]) print(x[2]) print(x[1]) 2 1

  25. Data Confounding Buggy Trial Correct 1)x ← [0,1,2,3] x ← … x ← … 2)y ← input() y ← 2 y ← 2 y ← 1 3)z ← input() z ← 3 z ← 2 z ← 2 4)x[z] ← 5 x[3] ← 5 x[2] ← 5 x[2] ← 5 5)print(x[y]) print(x[2]) print(x[2]) print(x[1]) 2 5 1

  26. Data Confounding Buggy Trial Correct 1)x ← [0,1,2,3] x ← … x ← … 2)y ← input() y ← 2 y ← 2 y ← 1 3)z ← input() z ← 3 z ← 2 z ← 2 4)x[z] ← 5 x[3] ← 5 x[2] ← 5 x[2] ← 5 5)print(x[y]) print(x[2]) print(x[2]) print(x[1]) 2 5 1

  27. Data Confounding Buggy Trial Correct 1)x ← [0,1,2,3] x ← … x ← … 2)y ← input() y ← 2 y ← 2 y ← 1 3)z ← input() z ← 3 z ← 2 z ← 2 4)x[z] ← 5 x[3] ← 5 x[2] ← 5 x[2] ← 5 5)print(x[y]) print(x[2]) print(x[2]) print(x[1]) 2 5 1 ● Either new control flow or new data flow can cause confounding. ● Removing them is crucial.

  28. Execution Omission ● A failure is not just incorrect behavior, it is missing correct behavior.

  29. Execution Omission ● A failure is not just incorrect behavior, it is missing correct behavior. – Also known as execution omission – Cannot be explained by reproducing faulty behavior

  30. Execution Omission Buggy Correct x ← 0 x ← 4 1) x ← input() y ← 2 y ← 5 2) y ← input() if False: if True: 3) if x > 3: print(5) 4) print(y) print('*') Print('*') 5) print('*')

  31. Execution Omission Buggy Correct x ← 0 x ← 4 1) x ← input() y ← 2 y ← 5 2) y ← input() if False: if True: 3) if x > 3: print(5) 4) print(y) print('*') Print('*') 5) print('*') What should we blame here?

  32. Execution Omission Buggy Correct x ← 0 x ← 4 1) x ← input() y ← 2 y ← 5 2) y ← input() if False: if True: 3) if x > 3: print(5) 4) print(y) print('*') Print('*') 5) print('*')

  33. Execution Omission Buggy Correct x ← 0 x ← 0 x ← 0 1) x ← input() y ← 2 y ← 5 y ← 5 2) y ← input() if False: if True: 3) if x > 3: print(5) 4) print(y) print('*') Print('*') 5) print('*')

  34. Execution Omission Buggy Correct x ← 0 x ← 0 x ← 0 1) x ← input() y ← 2 y ← 5 y ← 5 2) y ← input() if False: if False: if True: 3) if x > 3: print(5) 4) print(y) print('*') print('*') Print('*') 5) print('*') ● x alone reproduces the failure! ● Does x alone explain the bug?

  35. Execution Omission Buggy Correct x ← 0 x ← 0 x ← 0 1) x ← input() y ← 2 y ← 5 y ← 5 2) y ← input() if False: if False: if True: 3) if x > 3: print(5) 4) print(y) print('*') print('*') Print('*') 5) print('*') ● x alone reproduces the failure! ● Does x alone explain the bug? – Can you fix the bug by only fixing x?

  36. Execution Omission Buggy Correct x ← 0 x ← 0 x ← 0 1) x ← input() y ← 2 y ← 5 y ← 5 2) y ← input() if False: if False: if True: 3) if x > 3: print(5) 4) print(y) print('*') print('*') Print('*') 5) print('*') ● x alone reproduces the failure! ● Does x alone explain the bug? – Can you fix the bug by only fixing x? We can run a symmetric trial to find out!

  37. Execution Omission Buggy Correct x ← 0 x ← 4 1) x ← input() y ← 2 y ← 5 2) y ← input() if False: if True: 3) if x > 3: print(5) 4) print(y) print('*') Print('*') 5) print('*')

  38. Execution Omission Buggy Correct x ← 0 x ← 4 x ← 4 1) x ← input() y ← 2 y ← 2 y ← 5 2) y ← input() if False: if True: 3) if x > 3: print(5) 4) print(y) print('*') Print('*') 5) print('*')

  39. Execution Omission Buggy Correct x ← 0 x ← 4 x ← 4 1) x ← input() y ← 2 y ← 2 y ← 5 2) y ← input() if False: if True: if True: 3) if x > 3: print(2) print(5) 4) print(y) print('*') print('*') print('*') 5) print('*') ● Fixing x does not fix the missing behavior!

  40. Execution Omission Buggy Correct x ← 0 x ← 4 x ← 4 1) x ← input() y ← 2 y ← 2 y ← 5 2) y ← input() if False: if True: if True: 3) if x > 3: print(2) print(5) 4) print(y) print('*') print('*') print('*') 5) print('*') ● Fixing x does not fix the missing behavior! ● x alone does not explain the bug.

  41. Execution Omission Buggy Correct x ← 0 x ← 4 1) x ← input() y ← 2 y ← 5 2) y ← input() if False: if True: 3) if x > 3: print(5) 4) print(y) print('*') Print('*') 5) print('*') What if we try both x and y?

  42. Execution Omission Buggy Correct x ← 0 x ← 4 1) x ← input() y ← 2 y ← 5 2) y ← input() if False: if True: 3) if x > 3: print(5) 4) print(y) print('*') Print('*') 5) print('*') What if we try both x and y?

  43. Execution Omission Buggy Correct x ← 0 x ← 4 x ← 4 1) x ← input() y ← 2 y ← 5 y ← 5 2) y ← input() if False: if True: 3) if x > 3: print(5) 4) print(y) print('*') Print('*') 5) print('*')

  44. Execution Omission Buggy Correct x ← 0 x ← 4 x ← 4 1) x ← input() y ← 2 y ← 5 y ← 5 2) y ← input() if False: if True: if True: 3) if x > 3: print(5) print(5) 4) print(y) print('*') print('*') print('*') 5) print('*') ● Fixing x and y together can fix the bug

  45. Execution Omission Buggy Correct x ← 0 x ← 4 x ← 4 1) x ← input() y ← 2 y ← 5 y ← 5 2) y ← input() if False: if True: if True: 3) if x > 3: print(5) print(5) 4) print(y) print('*') print('*') print('*') 5) print('*') ● Fixing x and y together can fix the bug Symmetric trials at each step 1) 2) explain the missed behavior, too.

  46. Comparative Causality Explaining a failure: ● Reproducing the failure is not enough. ● Requires explaining why both executions differ from each other

  47. Comparative Causality Explaining a failure: ● Reproducing the failure is not enough. ● Requires explaining why both executions differ from each other ● Dual slicing ensures – That we compare behaviors from the two executions

  48. Comparative Causality Explaining a failure: ● Reproducing the failure is not enough. ● Requires explaining why both executions differ from each other ● Dual slicing ensures – That we compare behaviors from the two executions ● Symmetric comparison explains – Why the buggy execution did something wrong – Why the buggy execution didn't do something right

  49. Real Results ● Implemented with LLVM ● 20 KLOC ● Automatically explains bugs in C programs. – 20kloc - 400kloc – 400kinst – 2.24minst

  50. Real Results CC Old Program Size Trials Time Stmts Root Trials Time Stmts Root Precision Recall find 73k 15 12 6 X 1260 253 0 - 0 0 gnuplot 144k 33 44 10 X 469 141 10 X 1 1 gnuplot 139k 323 200 48 X 208 51 0 - 0 0 gnuplot 134k 337 961 129 - 1888 950 121 - 0.97 0.91 gnuplot 134k 130 140 33 - 3012 931 38 - 0.87 1 grep 12k 186 114 62 - 1012 8263 23 - 0.96 0.35 grep 12k 327 156 69 - 1734 183 32 - 1 0.46 grep 12k 78 49 27 X 1546 168 23 - 0.96 0.81 make 30k 62 342 27 X 543 416 17 - 1 0.63 tar 20k 8 22 3 X 221 50 3 X 1 1 tar 24k 125 124 48 X 332 110 0 - 0 0 tar 20k 121 53 20 X 296 66 0 - 0 0 tar 20k 28 43 10 X 2117 439 5 - 1 0.5 tar 21k 87 80 23 X 709 165 15 X 0.73 0.48 tar 21k 15 22 4 X 1283 228 4 X 1 1 Avg. 125 157 34 1109 828 20 0.22 0.26

  51. Real Results CC Old Program Size Trials Time Stmts Root Trials Time Stmts Root Precision Recall find 73k 15 12 6 X 1260 253 0 - 0 0 gnuplot 144k 33 44 10 X 469 141 10 X 1 1 gnuplot 139k 323 200 48 X 208 51 0 - 0 0 gnuplot 134k 337 961 129 - 1888 950 121 - 0.97 0.91 gnuplot 134k 130 140 33 - 3012 931 38 - 0.87 1 grep 12k 186 114 62 - 1012 8263 23 - 0.96 0.35 grep 12k 327 156 69 - 1734 183 32 - 1 0.46 grep 12k 78 49 27 X 1546 168 23 - 0.96 0.81 make 30k 62 342 27 X 543 416 17 - 1 0.63 tar 20k 8 22 3 X 221 50 3 X 1 1 tar 24k 125 124 48 X 332 110 0 - 0 0 tar 20k 121 53 20 X 296 66 0 - 0 0 tar 20k 28 43 10 X 2117 439 5 - 1 0.5 tar 21k 87 80 23 X 709 165 15 X 0.73 0.48 tar 21k 15 22 4 X 1283 228 4 X 1 1 Avg. 125 157 34 1109 828 20 0.22 0.26

  52. Real Results CC Old Program Size Trials Time Stmts Root Trials Time Stmts Root Precision Recall find 73k 15 12 6 X 1260 253 0 - 0 0 gnuplot 144k 33 44 10 X 469 141 10 X 1 1 gnuplot 139k 323 200 48 X 208 51 0 - 0 0 gnuplot 134k 337 961 129 - 1888 950 121 - 0.97 0.91 gnuplot 134k 130 140 33 - 3012 931 38 - 0.87 1 grep 12k 186 114 62 - 1012 8263 23 - 0.96 0.35 grep 12k 327 156 69 - 1734 183 32 - 1 0.46 grep 12k 78 49 27 X 1546 168 23 - 0.96 0.81 make 30k 62 342 27 X 543 416 17 - 1 0.63 tar 20k 8 22 3 X 221 50 3 X 1 1 tar 24k 125 124 48 X 332 110 0 - 0 0 tar 20k 121 53 20 X 296 66 0 - 0 0 tar 20k 28 43 10 X 2117 439 5 - 1 0.5 tar 21k 87 80 23 X 709 165 15 X 0.73 0.48 tar 21k 15 22 4 X 1283 228 4 X 1 1 Avg. 125 157 34 1109 828 20 0.22 0.26

  53. Real Results CC Old Program Size Trials Time Stmts Root Trials Time Stmts Root Precision Recall find 73k 15 12 6 X 1260 253 0 - 0 0 gnuplot 144k 33 44 10 X 469 141 10 X 1 1 gnuplot 139k 323 200 48 X 208 51 0 - 0 0 gnuplot 134k 337 961 129 - 1888 950 121 - 0.97 0.91 gnuplot 134k 130 140 33 - 3012 931 38 - 0.87 1 grep 12k 186 114 62 - 1012 8263 23 - 0.96 0.35 Precise reasoning grep 12k 327 156 69 - 1734 183 32 - 1 0.46 grep 12k 78 49 27 X 1546 168 23 - 0.96 0.81 is more efficient! make 30k 62 342 27 X 543 416 17 - 1 0.63 tar 20k 8 22 3 X 221 50 3 X 1 1 tar 24k 125 124 48 X 332 110 0 - 0 0 tar 20k 121 53 20 X 296 66 0 - 0 0 tar 20k 28 43 10 X 2117 439 5 - 1 0.5 tar 21k 87 80 23 X 709 165 15 X 0.73 0.48 3 min 14 min tar 21k 15 22 4 X 1283 228 4 X 1 1 Avg. 125 157 34 1109 828 20 0.22 0.26

  54. Real Results CC Old Program Size Trials Time Stmts Root Trials Time Stmts Root Precision Recall find 73k 15 12 6 X 1260 253 0 - 0 0 gnuplot 144k 33 44 10 X 469 141 10 X 1 1 gnuplot 139k 323 200 48 X 208 51 0 - 0 0 gnuplot 134k 337 961 129 - 1888 950 121 - 0.97 0.91 gnuplot 134k 130 140 33 - 3012 931 38 - 0.87 1 grep 12k 186 114 62 - 1012 8263 23 - 0.96 0.35 grep 12k 327 156 69 - 1734 183 32 - 1 0.46 grep 12k 78 49 27 X 1546 168 23 - 0.96 0.81 make 30k 62 342 27 X 543 416 17 - 1 0.63 tar 20k 8 22 3 X 221 50 3 X 1 1 tar 24k 125 124 48 X 332 110 0 - 0 0 tar 20k 121 53 20 X 296 66 0 - 0 0 125 trials 1100 trials tar 20k 28 43 10 X 2117 439 5 - 1 0.5 tar 21k 87 80 23 X 709 165 15 X 0.73 0.48 tar 21k 15 22 4 X 1283 228 4 X 1 1 Avg. 125 157 34 1109 828 20 0.22 0.26

  55. Real Results CC Old Program Size Trials Time Stmts Root Trials Time Stmts Root Precision Recall find 73k 15 12 6 X 1260 253 0 - 0 0 gnuplot 144k 33 44 10 X 469 141 10 X 1 1 gnuplot 139k 323 200 48 X 208 51 0 - 0 0 gnuplot 134k 337 961 129 - 1888 950 121 - 0.97 0.91 gnuplot 134k 130 140 33 - 3012 931 38 - 0.87 1 grep 12k 186 114 62 - 1012 8263 23 - 0.96 0.35 grep 12k 327 156 69 - 1734 183 32 - 1 0.46 grep 12k 78 49 27 X 1546 168 23 - 0.96 0.81 make 30k 62 342 27 X 543 416 17 - 1 0.63 tar 20k 8 22 3 X 221 50 3 X 1 1 tar 24k 125 124 48 X 332 110 0 - 0 0 tar 20k 121 53 20 X 296 66 0 - 0 0 35 stmts 20 stmts tar 20k 28 43 10 X 2117 439 5 - 1 0.5 tar 21k 87 80 23 X 709 165 15 X 0.73 0.48 tar 21k 15 22 4 X 1283 228 4 X 1 1 Avg. 125 157 34 1109 828 20 0.22 0.26

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend

Explanation of the differences between radiation, convection, conduction. Explaining radiation .

Explanation of the differences between radiation, convection, conduction. Explaining radiation .

Explanation of the differences between radiation, convection, conduction. Explaining radiation . Every body which has a temperature above 0 Kelvin gives out (i.e. radiates) some heat in the form of waves. (Even humans radiate!) Of course, the

241 views • 3 slides
What matters in differences between life trajectories? A comparative review of sequence

What matters in differences between life trajectories? A comparative review of sequence

Sequence analysis Reviewing distances Simulations Conclusion References What matters in differences between life trajectories? A comparative review of sequence dissimilarity measures Matthias Studer 1 , 2 &amp; Gilbert Ritschard 1 , 2 1 LIVES

552 views • 41 slides
AEFI Causality Assessment Approach to causality assessment in deaths following immunization

AEFI Causality Assessment Approach to causality assessment in deaths following immunization

AEFI Causality Assessment Approach to causality assessment in deaths following immunization Training workshop on AEFI and Causality Assessment Common Error Preconceived diagnosis drives case data collection and causality assessment Must be

706 views • 35 slides
Explaining differences in efficiency. A meta-study on judicial literature Aiello Francesco

Explaining differences in efficiency. A meta-study on judicial literature Aiello Francesco

Explaining differences in efficiency. A meta-study on judicial literature Aiello Francesco University of Calabria - Italy Bonanno Graziella University of Campania &quot;Luigi Vanvitelli&quot; Italy Foglia Francesco University of Reggio

757 views • 51 slides
Children and Coupled Joblessness in Europe: Labour Supply, Fertility, and Comparative Differences

Children and Coupled Joblessness in Europe: Labour Supply, Fertility, and Comparative Differences

Children and Coupled Joblessness in Europe: Labour Supply, Fertility, and Comparative Differences Juho Hrknen European University Institute Dep. of Political and Social Sciences E-mail: Juho.Harkonen@IUE.it May 2006 Background Employment

173 views • 13 slides
Simultaneous Causality: Part IV on Causality James J. Heckman Econ 312, Spring 2019 1 / 29

Simultaneous Causality: Part IV on Causality James J. Heckman Econ 312, Spring 2019 1 / 29

References Simultaneous Causality: Part IV on Causality James J. Heckman Econ 312, Spring 2019 1 / 29 References Econometric Causality Entertains the Possibility of Simultaneous Causality Nonrecursive (Simultaneous) Models of Causality:

697 views • 31 slides
6. Individual Differences Differences: Big Questions Are some differences changeable and

6. Individual Differences Differences: Big Questions Are some differences changeable and

6. Individual Differences Differences: Big Questions Are some differences changeable and how much? What effect does community and environment play? What can teachers do to accommodate differences? 6.1 The Nature-Nurture

742 views • 52 slides
Complemen(zers and Causality He said that X and (that) Y

Complemen(zers and Causality He said that X and (that) Y

Complemen(zers and Causality He said that X and (that) Y Did X cause Y? Joseph Tyler Hannah Rohde Katy Carlson Coherence and Causality

434 views • 31 slides
Granger Causality and Dynamic Structural Systems Halbert White and Xun Lu Department of

Granger Causality and Dynamic Structural Systems Halbert White and Xun Lu Department of

Granger Causality and Dynamic Structural Systems Halbert White and Xun Lu Department of Economics, UCSD October 15, 2008 Objective Relate Granger causality to a notion of structural causality Granger ( G ) causality (Granger, 1969 and

879 views • 38 slides
Presentation By: Travis Wooley Interesting Differences Internal Hardware Speed

Presentation By: Travis Wooley Interesting Differences Internal Hardware Speed

A Comparative Study of the Android and iPhone Operating Systems Presentation By: Travis Wooley Interesting Differences Internal Hardware Speed Bluetooth Built-in Memory External Memory Interesting Differences External

377 views • 9 slides
Expressing Causality in Categorical Models of Functional Reactive Programming Wolfgang Jeltsch

Expressing Causality in Categorical Models of Functional Reactive Programming Wolfgang Jeltsch

Introduction Causality Causality in semantics Consequences Conclusions Expressing Causality in Categorical Models of Functional Reactive Programming Wolfgang Jeltsch TT U K uberneetika Instituut Tallinn, Estonia Joint

547 views • 15 slides
Causality Along Subspaces Majid Al-Sadoon University of Cambridge Royal Economic Society Fifth

Causality Along Subspaces Majid Al-Sadoon University of Cambridge Royal Economic Society Fifth

Causality Along Subspaces Majid Al-Sadoon University of Cambridge Royal Economic Society Fifth PhD Presentation Meeting, 16/01/2010 Outline Introduction Subspace Causality Subspace Causality Test Sample of Results Other Applications

717 views • 15 slides
Econometric Causality: Part I on Causality Based in part on Heckman (2008) International

Econometric Causality: Part I on Causality Based in part on Heckman (2008) International

Econometric Causality: Part I on Causality Based in part on Heckman (2008) International Statistical Review , 76(1):1-27 James J. Heckman Econ 312, Spring 2019 Heckman Econometric Causality Econometric Approach Econometric approach to

537 views • 43 slides
Causality-Based Versioning Causality-Based Versioning Kiran-Kumar Muniswamy-Reddy and David A.

Causality-Based Versioning Causality-Based Versioning Kiran-Kumar Muniswamy-Reddy and David A.

Causality-Based Versioning Causality-Based Versioning Kiran-Kumar Muniswamy-Reddy and David A. Holland Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Consider this scenario Consider this scenario I installed a piece of software I

947 views • 61 slides
Open-access datasets for time series causality discovery validation I. Guyon, C. Aliferis, G.

Open-access datasets for time series causality discovery validation I. Guyon, C. Aliferis, G.

Open-access datasets for time series causality discovery validation I. Guyon, C. Aliferis, G. Cooper, A. Elisseff, O. Guyon, J.-P. Pellet, A. Statnikov, P. Spirtes http://clopinet.com/causality/ causality@clopinet.com The challenges of

507 views • 16 slides
Causality in a wide sense Lecture III Peter B uhlmann Seminar for Statistics ETH Z

Causality in a wide sense Lecture III Peter B uhlmann Seminar for Statistics ETH Z

Causality in a wide sense Lecture III Peter B uhlmann Seminar for Statistics ETH Z urich Recap from yesterday causality is giving a prediction to an intervention/manipulation Predicting a potential outcome 10 5

1.14k views • 111 slides
Dataflow Testing Chapter 10 Dataflow Testing Testing All-Nodes and All-Edges in a control

Dataflow Testing Chapter 10 Dataflow Testing Testing All-Nodes and All-Edges in a control

Dataflow Testing Chapter 10 Dataflow Testing Testing All-Nodes and All-Edges in a control flow graph may miss significant test cases Testing All-Paths in a control flow graph is often too time- consuming Can we select a subset of

682 views • 24 slides
Fault-tolerant quantum computing with color codes Andrew J. Landahl with Jonas T. Anderson and

Fault-tolerant quantum computing with color codes Andrew J. Landahl with Jonas T. Anderson and

' !&quot; ' !&quot; !* !* !! !! % $ !# ) !# ( !&amp; !&amp; !+' *+!&quot; !&quot;#$#%&amp;'()*+,&amp;-.&amp;&quot;#/-0#.$)(&amp;'#%-1#.&amp;&amp; &quot;#$% &amp; !% !$ !% !$ &amp;+!! #+!* % $ % $

325 views • 13 slides
An Empirical Study of Fault Localization Families and Their Combinations Daming Zou, Jingjing

An Empirical Study of Fault Localization Families and Their Combinations Daming Zou, Jingjing

An Empirical Study of Fault Localization Families and Their Combinations Daming Zou, Jingjing Liang, Yingfei Xiong, Michael D. Ernst, and Lu Zhang ESEC/FSE 2019 Journal First Paper on TSE Tallinn, Estonia 29 Aug 2019 Fault Localization (FL)

479 views • 16 slides
Using program slicing data to predict code faults David Bowes University of Hertfordshire

Using program slicing data to predict code faults David Bowes University of Hertfordshire

Outline Using program slicing data to predict code faults Calculating the Slicing metrics for a module Relating slicing metrics to fault data Conclusion Using program slicing data to predict code faults David Bowes University of

579 views • 15 slides
Fault-tolerant protocols and trace spaces Eric Goubault CEA LIST, Ecole Polytechnique MMTDC,

Fault-tolerant protocols and trace spaces Eric Goubault CEA LIST, Ecole Polytechnique MMTDC,

Fault-tolerant protocols and trace spaces Eric Goubault CEA LIST, Ecole Polytechnique MMTDC, Bremen, 26th-30th of August 2013 Eric Goubault, CEA LIST, Ecole Polytechnique 1 / 68 Contents of the talk Some directed algebraic topology, in

1.34k views • 108 slides
Recursive Restarts for HA We have crash-only components now what? Reduce recovery time

Recursive Restarts for HA We have crash-only components now what? Reduce recovery time

1/14/2003 Recursive Restarts for HA We have crash-only components now what? Reduce recovery time by doing partial restarts: attempt recovery of a minimal subset of components What if restart ineffective? recover progressively

324 views • 3 slides
Inferring Test Models from Kates Bug Reports using Multi-objective Search Yuanyuan Zhang

Inferring Test Models from Kates Bug Reports using Multi-objective Search Yuanyuan Zhang

Inferring Test Models from Kates Bug Reports using Multi-objective Search Yuanyuan Zhang Mark Harman Yue Jia and Federica Sarro University College London SSBSE 2015 Challenge Track Paper Which page should we put more effort to proofread?

589 views • 28 slides
hhhh Agenda O/S Applications RMS System management Troubleshooting tools

hhhh Agenda O/S Applications RMS System management Troubleshooting tools

1 Bruce Ellis &amp; Guy Peleg bruce.ellis@bruden.com guy.peleg@bruden.com BRUDEN-OSSG hhhh Agenda O/S Applications RMS System management Troubleshooting tools Simulators 2 Si vous naimez pas ma conduite,

631 views • 62 slides

More recommend