The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Mining specifications
Open accessAbstract
Program verification is a promising approach to improving program quality, because it can search all possible program executions for specific errors. However, the need to formally describe correct behavior or errors is a major barrier to the widespread adoption of program verification, since programmers historically have been reluctant to write formal specifications. Automating the process of formulating specifications would remove a barrier to program verification and enhance its practicality.This paper describes specification mining, a machine learning approach to discovering formal specifications of the protocols that code must obey when interacting with an application program interface or abstract data type. Starting from the assumption that a working program is well enough debugged to reveal strong hints of correct protocols, our tool infers a specification by observing program execution and concisely summarizing the frequent interaction patterns as state machines that capture both temporal and data dependences. These state machines can be examined by a programmer, to refine the specification and identify errors, and can be utilized by automatic verification tools, to find bugs.Our preliminary experience with the mining tool has been promising. We were able to learn specifications that not only captured the correct protocol, but also discovered serious bugs.
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
Code completion with statistical language models
Raychev, V., Vechev, M., & Yahav, E. (2014) · Proceedings of the 35th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation · doi:10.1145/2594291.2594321 · Cited by 555
Inferring extended finite state machine models from software executions
Walkinshaw, N., Taylor, R., & Derrick, J. (2016) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-015-9367-7 · Cited by 127
Henzinger, T. A., Jhala, R., & Majumdar, R. (2005) · Proceedings of the 10th European software engineering conference held jointly with 13th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering · doi:10.1145/1081706.1081713 · Cited by 111
Automatically Generating Test Cases for Specification Mining
Dallmeier, V., Knopp, N., Mallon, C., Fraser, G., Hack, S., & Zeller, A. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2011.105 · Cited by 67
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
- Ammons, G., Bodík, R., & Larus, J. R.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2002-01
- Pages
- 4-16
- OpenAlex
- W2295399529
- Cited by
- 665
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.28
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.