Papers › Learning Off-By-One Mistakes: An Empirical Study

Learning Off-By-One Mistakes: An Empirical Study

24 Feb 2021arXiv:2102.12429links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Hendrig Sellik, Onno van Paridon, Georgios Gousios, Maurício Aniche

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Mistakes in binary conditions are a source of error in many software systems. They happen when developers use, e.g., < or > instead of <= or >=. These boundary mistakes are hard to find and impose manual, labor-intensive work for software developers. While previous research has been proposing solutions to identify errors in boundary conditions, the problem remains open. In this paper, we explore the effectiveness of deep learning models in learning and predicting mistakes in boundary conditions. We train different models on approximately 1.6M examples with faults in different boundary conditions. We achieve a precision of 85% and a recall of 84% on a balanced dataset, but lower numbers in an imbalanced dataset. We also perform tests on 41 real-world boundary condition bugs found from GitHub, where the model shows only a modest performance. Finally, we test the model on a large-scale Java code base from Adyen, our industrial partner. The model reported 36 buggy methods, but none of them were confirmed by developers.

PaperPDFCode

Code

hsellik/thesis officialmentioned in papertf report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections