The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Mining API patterns as partial orders from source code: from usage scenarios to specifications
Abstract
A software system interacts with third-party libraries through various APIs. Using these library APIs often needs tofollow certain usage patterns. Furthermore, ordering rules (specifications) exist between APIs, and these rules govern the secure and robust operation of the system using these APIs. But these patterns and rules may not be well documented by the API developers. Previous approaches mine frequent association rules, itemsets, or subsequences that capture API call patterns shared by API client code. However, these frequent API patterns cannot completely capture some useful orderings shared by APIs, especially when multiple APIs are involved across different procedures. In this paper, we present a framework to automatically extract usage scenarios among user-specified APIs as partial orders, directly from the source code (API client code). We adapt a model checker to generate interprocedural control-flow-sensitive static traces related to the APIs of interest. Different API usage scenarios are extracted from the static traces by our scenario extraction algorithm and fed to a miner. The miner summarizes different usage scenarios as compact partial orders. Specifications are extracted from the frequent partial orders using our specification extraction algorithm. Our experience of applying the framework on 72 X11 clients with 200K LOC in total has shown that theextracted API partial orders are useful in assisting effective API reuse and checking.
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
(2014) · doi:10.1145/2635868.2635901 · Cited by 159
A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness
Allamanis, M., Barr, E. T., Devanbu, P., & Sutton, C. (2019) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3212695 · Cited by 150
Supporting Software Developers with a Holistic Recommender System
Ponzanelli, L., Scalabrino, S., Bavota, G., Mocci, A., Oliveto, R., Di Penta, M., & Lanza, M. (2017) · 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse.2017.17 · Cited by 41
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
- Acharya, M., Xie, T., Pei, J., & Xu, J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the the 6th joint meeting of the European software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on The foundations of software engineering
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2007-09-07
- Pages
- 25-34
- OpenAlex
- W2121818394
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.84
- 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: Mining API patterns as partial orders from source code: from usage scenarios to specifications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1287624.1287630
- The paper
- Acharya, M., Xie, T., Pei, J., & Xu, J. (2007). Mining API patterns as partial orders from source code: from usage scenarios to specifications. Proceedings of the the 6th joint meeting of the European software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on The foundations of software engineering. https://doi.org/10.1145/1287624.1287630
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.