The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
CASCADE: Detecting Inconsistencies between Code and Documentation with Automatic Test Generation
Abstract
Maintaining consistency between code and documentation is a crucial yet frequently overlooked aspect of software development. Even minor mismatches can confuse API users, introduce new bugs, and increase overall maintenance effort. This creates demand for automated solutions that can assist developers in identifying code-documentation inconsistencies. However, since automatic reports still require human confirmation, false positives carry serious consequences: wasting developer time and discouraging practical adoption. We introduce CASCADE (Consistency Analysis for Source Code And Documentation through Execution), a novel tool for detecting inconsistencies with a strong emphasis on reducing false positives. CASCADE leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate unit tests directly from natural-language documentation. Since these tests are derived from the documentation, any failure during execution indicates a potential mismatch between the documented and actual behavior of the code. To minimize false positives, CASCADE also generates code from the documentation to cross-check the generated tests. By design, an inconsistency is reported only when two conditions are met: the existing code fails a test, while the code generated from the documentation passes the same test. We evaluated CASCADE on a novel dataset of 71 inconsistent and 814 consistent code-documentation pairs drawn from open-source Java projects. Further, we applied CASCADE to additional Java, C#, and Rust repositories, where we uncovered 13 previously unknown inconsistencies, of which 10 have subsequently been fixed, demonstrating both CASCADE's precision and its applicability to real-world codebases.
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
Automating just-in-time comment updating
Liu, Z., Xia, X., Yan, M., & Li, S. (2020) · Proceedings of the 35th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3324884.3416581 · Cited by 56
Research works printed but not linked: 49
- 10.1016/J.JSS · DOI
- 10.1145/3213846.3213872 · DOI
- 10.1109/RE.2004.46 · DOI
- 10.1016/J.SCICO.2014.06.007 · DOI
- Bei Chen, Fengji Zhang, Anh Nguyen, Daoguang Zan, Zeqi Lin, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2023. CodeT: Code Generation with Generated Tests. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023. OpenReview.net. https://openreview.net/forum?id=ktrw68Cmu9c
- 10.1109/ICSE55347.2025.00087 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3475716.3475781 · DOI
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2306 · DOI
- 10.1145/1085313.1085331 · DOI
- 10.1016/J.JSS.2022.111549 · DOI
- 10.1145/2025113.2025179 · DOI
- 10.1145/3468264.3468553 · DOI
- 10.1145/3703155 · DOI · Paper page
- Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik R. Narasimhan. 2024. SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-world Github Issues?. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024. OpenReview.net. https://openreview.net/forum? id=VTF8yNQM66
- 10.1145/2610384.2628055 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2406.14836 · DOI
- 10.1145/3510003.3510153 · DOI
- 10.1109/CHASE.2019.00029 · DOI
- 10.1109/LLM4CODE66737.2025.00020 · DOI
- 10.1007/S11219-018-9404-Z · DOI
- 10.1109/TSE.2021.3138909 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICSE-FOSE59343.2023.00010 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICICV50876.2021.9388380 · DOI
- Ansong Ni, Srini Iyer, Dragomir Radev, Veselin Stoyanov, Wen-Tau Yih, Sida I. Wang, and Xi Victoria Lin. 2023. LEVER: Learning to Verify Language-to-Code Generation with Execution. In International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2023, 23-29 July 2023, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research), Andreas Krause, Emma Brunskill, Kyunghyun Cho, Barbara Engelhardt, Sivan Sabato, and Jonathan Scarlett (Eds.). PMLR, 26106-26128. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v202/ni23b.html
- 10.1109/ISSREW53611.2021.00063 · DOI
- 10.1145/1297846.1297902 · DOI
- 10.1609/AAAI.V35I1.16119 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.18653/V1/2020.ACL-MAIN.168 · DOI
- 10.1016/J.JSS.2022.111515 · DOI
- 10.1109/ASE · DOI
- 10.1109/TSE.2006.91 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICSE55347 · DOI
- 10.1109/TSE.2023.3334955 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/ICST.2011.51 · DOI
- 10.1109/ASE.2019.00028 · DOI
- 10.1109/SCAM51674 · DOI
- 10.1016/J.JSS.2025.112381 · DOI
- 10.1145/1294261.1294276 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICST.2012.106 · DOI
- 10.18653/V1/2024.FINDINGS-ACL.247 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/TSE.2018.2871058 · DOI
- 10.1109/MS.2014.80 · DOI
- 10.18653/V1/2021.EMNLP-MAIN.685 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/ICPC.2019.00019 · DOI · Paper page
- Xin Xia Lingfeng Bao David Lo Zhenchang Xing Ahmed E. Hassan and Shanping Li. 2018. Measuring program comprehension: a large-scale field study with professionals. (2018) 584. doi:10.1145/3180155.3182538 10.1145/3180155.3182538 · DOI
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2305.10235 · DOI
- 10.1145/3691620.3695010 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/ASE.2009.94 · DOI
- Yuxiang Zhu and Minxue Pan. 2019. Automatic Code Summarization: A Systematic Literature Review. CoRR abs/1909.04352 (2019). arXiv:1909.04352 http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.04352 · arXiv
Metadata
- Authors
- Kiecker, T., Sparka, J. A., Reuter, M., Ziegler, A., & Grunske, L.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2026-06-30
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- FSE
- Pages
- 3816-3838
- ISSN
- 2994-970X
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
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