The DOI matches its Crossref record.
PR-Miner: automatically extracting implicit programming rules and detecting violations in large software code
Abstract
Programs usually follow many implicit programming rules, most of which are too tedious to be documented by programmers. When these rules are violated by programmers who are unaware of or forget about them, defects can be easily introduced. Therefore, it is highly desirable to have tools to automatically extract such rules and also to automatically detect violations. Previous work in this direction focuses on simple function-pair based programming rules and additionally requires programmers to provide rule templates.This paper proposes a general method called PR-Miner that uses a data mining technique called frequent itemset mining to efficiently extract implicit programming rules from large software code written in an industrial programming language such as C, requiring little effort from programmers and no prior knowledge of the software. Benefiting from frequent itemset mining, PR-Miner can extract programming rules in general forms (without being constrained by any fixed rule templates) that can contain multiple program elements of various types such as functions, variables and data types. In addition, we also propose an efficient algorithm to automatically detect violations to the extracted programming rules, which are strong indications of bugs.Our evaluation with large software code, including Linux, PostgreSQL Server and the Apache HTTP Server, with 84K--3M lines of code each, shows that PR-Miner can efficiently extract thousands of general programming rules and detect violations within 2 minutes. Moreover, PR-Miner has detected many violations to the extracted rules. Among the top 60 violations reported by PR-Miner, 16 have been confirmed as bugs in the latest version of Linux, 6 in PostgreSQL and 1 in Apache. Most of them violate complex programming rules that contain more than 2 elements and are thereby difficult for previous tools to detect. We reported these bugs and they are currently being fixed by developers.
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
Cited by
DECKARD: Scalable and Accurate Tree-Based Detection of Code Clones
Jiang, L., Misherghi, G., Su, Z., & Glondu, S. (2007) · 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'07) · doi:10.1109/icse.2007.30 · Cited by 1,039
Generating Unit Tests for Documentation
Nassif, M., Hernandez, A., Sridharan, A., & Robillard, M. P. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2021.3087087 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Li, Z., & Zhou, Y.
- 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
- 306-315
- OpenAlex
- W2054520963
- Cited by
- 428
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.94
- 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
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.
