The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
DynaMine: finding common error patterns by mining software revision histories
Abstract
A great deal of attention has lately been given to addressing software bugs such as errors in operating system drivers or security bugs. However, there are many other lesser known errors specific to individual applications or APIs and these violations of application-specific coding rules are responsible for a multitude of errors. In this paper we propose DynaMine, a tool that analyzes source code check-ins to find highly correlated method calls as well as common bug fixes in order to automatically discover application-specific coding patterns. Potential patterns discovered through mining are passed to a dynamic analysis tool for validation; finally, the results of dynamic analysis are presented to the user.The combination of revision history mining and dynamic analysis techniques leveraged in DynaMine proves effective for both discovering new application-specific patterns and for finding errors when applied to very large applications with many man-years of development and debugging effort behind them. We have analyzed Eclipse and jEdit, two widely-used, mature, highly extensible applications consisting of more than 3,600,000 lines of code combined. By mining revision histories, we have discovered 56 previously unknown, highly application-specific patterns. Out of these, 21 were dynamically confirmed as very likely valid patterns and a total of 263 pattern violations were found.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A static analyzer for large safety-critical software
Blanchet, B., Cousot, P., Cousot, R., Feret, J., Mauborgne, L., Miné, A., Monniaux, D., & Rival, X. (2003) · Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2003 conference on Programming language design and implementation · doi:10.1145/781131.781153 · Cited by 330
Cited by
The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019 · Cited by 8,727
GPLAG: detection of software plagiarism by program dependence graph analysis
Liu, C., Chen, C., Han, J., & Yu, P. S. (2006) · Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/1150402.1150522 · Cited by 422
On the naturalness of software
Hindle, A., Barr, E. T., Gabel, M., Su, Z., & Devanbu, P. (2016) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/2902362 · Cited by 307
Early Detection of Collaboration Conflicts and Risks
Brun, Y., Holmes, R., Ernst, M. D., & Notkin, D. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2013.28 · Cited by 82
TwinMem-Agent: Episodic and Semantic Memory for Repository-Level Program Repair
Wu, B., Luo, Z., Mu, F., & Xiang, L. (2026) · Proceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3803437.3807664
Metadata
- Authors
- Livshits, B., & Zimmermann, T.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 10th European software engineering conference held jointly with 13th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2005-09
- Pages
- 296-305
- OpenAlex
- W2124666592
- Cited by
- 330
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 20.91
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: DynaMine: finding common error patterns by mining software revision histories. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1081706.1081754
- The paper
- Livshits, B., & Zimmermann, T. (2005). DynaMine: finding common error patterns by mining software revision histories. Proceedings of the 10th European software engineering conference held jointly with 13th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering. https://doi.org/10.1145/1081706.1081754
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
