Probability Distributions.- Linear Models for Regression.- Linear Models for Classification.- Neural Networks.- Kernel Methods.- Sparse Kernel Machines.- Graphical Models.- Mixture Models and EM.- Approximate Inference.- Sampling Methods.- Continuous Latent Variables.- Sequential Data.- Combining Models.

Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning

物件導向軟體之架構(Object-Oriented Software Construction)探討

Aspect] is a simple and practical aspect-oriented extension to Java With just a few new constructs, AspectJ provides support for modular implementation of a range of crosscutting concerns. In AspectJ's dynamic join point model, join points are well-defined points in the execution of the program; pointcuts are collections of join points; advice are special method-like constructs that can be attached to pointcuts; and aspects are modular units of crosscutting implementation, comprising pointcuts, advice, and ordinary Java member declarations. AspectJ code is compiled into standard Java bytecode. Simple extensions to existing Java development environments make it possible to browse the crosscutting structure of aspects in the same kind of way as one browses the inheritance structure of classes. Several examples show that AspectJ is powerful, and that programs written using it are easy to understand.

An overview of AspectJ

From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

ing WS1S Systems to Verify Parameterized Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Kai Baukus, Saddek Bensalem, Yassine Lakhnech and Karsten Stahl FMona: A Tool for Expressing Validation Techniques over Infinite State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 J.-P. Bodeveix and M. Filali Transitive Closures of Regular Relations for Verifying Infinite-State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Bengt Jonsson and Marcus Nilsson Diagnostic and Test Generation Using Static Analysis to Improve Automatic Test Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Marius Bozga, Jean-Claude Fernandez and Lucian Ghirvu Efficient Diagnostic Generation for Boolean Equation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Radu Mateescu Efficient Model-Checking Compositional State Space Generation with Partial Order Reductions for Asynchronous Communicating Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Jean-Pierre Krimm and Laurent Mounier Checking for CFFD-Preorder with Tester Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Juhana Helovuo and Antti Valmari Fair Bisimulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Thomas A. Henzinger and Sriram K. Rajamani Integrating Low Level Symmetries into Reachability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Karsten Schmidt Model-Checking Tools Model Checking Support for the ASM High-Level Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 Giuseppe Del Castillo and Kirsten Winter Table of

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Proc. TACAS 2009

Defect prediction models are a well-known technique for identifying defect-prone files or packages such that practitioners can allocate their quality assurance efforts (e.g., testing and code reviews). However, once the critical files or packages have been identified, developers still need to spend considerable time drilling down to the functions or even code snippets that should be reviewed or tested. This makes the approach too time consuming and impractical for large software systems. Instead, we consider defect prediction models that focus on identifying defect-prone (“risky”) software changes instead of files or packages. We refer to this type of quality assurance activity as “Just-In-Time Quality Assurance,” because developers can review and test these risky changes while they are still fresh in their minds (i.e., at check-in time). To build a change risk model, we use a wide range of factors based on the characteristics of a software change, such as the number of added lines, and developer experience. A large-scale study of six open source and five commercial projects from multiple domains shows that our models can predict whether or not a change will lead to a defect with an average accuracy of 68 percent and an average recall of 64 percent. Furthermore, when considering the effort needed to review changes, we find that using only 20 percent of the effort it would take to inspect all changes, we can identify 35 percent of all defect-inducing changes. Our findings indicate that “Just-In-Time Quality Assurance” may provide an effort-reducing way to focus on the most risky changes and thus reduce the costs of developing high-quality software.

/pdf/a-large-scale-empirical-study-of-just-in-time-quality-oqb4b5ys1y.pdf

A large-scale empirical study of just-in-time quality assurance

Unlike traditional defect prediction models that identify defect-prone modules, Just-In-Time (JIT) defect prediction models identify defect-inducing changes. As such, JIT defect models can provide earlier feedback for developers, while design decisions are still fresh in their minds. Unfortunately, similar to traditional defect models, JIT models require a large amount of training data, which is not available when projects are in initial development phases. To address this limitation in traditional defect prediction, prior work has proposed cross-project models, i.e., models learned from other projects with sufficient history. However, cross-project models have not yet been explored in the context of JIT prediction. Therefore, in this study, we empirically evaluate the performance of JIT models in a cross-project context. Through an empirical study on 11 open source projects, we find that while JIT models rarely perform well in a cross-project context, their performance tends to improve when using approaches that: (1) select models trained using other projects that are similar to the testing project, (2) combine the data of several other projects to produce a larger pool of training data, and (3) combine the models of several other projects to produce an ensemble model. Our findings empirically confirm that JIT models learned using other projects are a viable solution for projects with limited historical data. However, JIT models tend to perform best in a cross-project context when the data used to learn them are carefully selected.

/pdf/studying-just-in-time-defect-prediction-using-cross-project-4e7uy4vsgh.pdf

Studying just-in-time defect prediction using cross-project models

Prior research suggests that predicting defect-inducing changes, i.e., Just-In-Time (JIT) defect prediction is a more practical alternative to traditional defect prediction techniques, providing immediate feedback while design decisions are still fresh in the minds of developers. Unfortunately, similar to traditional defect prediction models, JIT models require a large amount of training data, which is not available when projects are in initial development phases. To address this flaw in traditional defect prediction, prior work has proposed cross-project models, i.e., models learned from older projects with sufficient history. However, cross-project models have not yet been explored in the context of JIT prediction. Therefore, in this study, we empirically evaluate the performance of JIT cross-project models. Through a case study on 11 open source projects, we find that in a JIT cross-project context: (1) high performance within-project models rarely perform well; (2) models trained on projects that have similar correlations between predictor and dependent variables often perform well; and (3) ensemble learning techniques that leverage historical data from several other projects (e.g., voting experts) often perform well. Our findings empirically confirm that JIT cross-project models learned using other projects are a viable solution for projects with little historical data. However, JIT cross-project models perform best when the data used to learn them is carefully selected.

/pdf/an-empirical-study-of-just-in-time-defect-prediction-using-47rmlha6ma.pdf

An empirical study of just-in-time defect prediction using cross-project models

Software quality assurance efforts often focus on identifying defective code. To find likely defective code early, change-level defect prediction - aka. Just-In-Time (JIT) defect prediction - has been proposed. JIT defect prediction models identify likely defective changes and they are trained using machine learning techniques with the assumption that historical changes are similar to future ones. Most existing JIT defect prediction approaches make use of manually engineered features. Unlike those approaches, in this paper, we propose an end-to-end deep learning framework, named DeepJIT, that automatically extracts features from commit messages and code changes and use them to identify defects. Experiments on two popular software projects (i.e., QT and OPENSTACK) on three evaluation settings (i.e., cross-validation, short-period, and long-period) show that the best variant of DeepJIT (DeepJIT-Combined), compared with the best performing state-of-the-art approach, achieves improvements of 10.36--11.02% for the project QT and 9.51--13.69% for the project OPENSTACK in terms of the Area Under the Curve (AUC).

https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5489&context=sis_research

DeepJIT: an end-to-end deep learning framework for just-in-time defect prediction

We propose a linguistic mechanism for AspectJ-like languages that concisely associates aspect instances to object groups. The mechanism, which supports association aspects, extends the per-object aspects in AspectJ by allowing an aspect instance to be associated to a group of objects, and by providing a new pointcut primitive to specify aspect instances as execution contexts of advice. With association aspects, we can straightforwardly implement crosscutting concerns that have stateful behavior related to a particular group of objects. The new pointcut primitive can more flexibly specify aspect instances when compared against previous implicit mechanisms. The comparison of execution times between the programs with association aspects and the ones with regular AspectJ aspects revealed that the association aspects exhibited almost equivalent for the medium-sized configurations.

Naoyasu Ubayashi

Papers

A large-scale empirical study of just-in-time quality assurance

Studying just-in-time defect prediction using cross-project models

An empirical study of just-in-time defect prediction using cross-project models

DeepJIT: an end-to-end deep learning framework for just-in-time defect prediction

Association aspects