MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2271119194 · doi:10.11575/prism/31125

Using Structural Generalization to Discover Replacement Functionality for API Evolution

2014· article· en· W2271119194 on OpenAlexafffund
Bradley Edward Cossette, Robert J. Walker, Rylan Cottrell

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceApplication programming interfaceSoftwareGeneralizationJavaMatching (statistics)Software engineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New versions of software libraries sometimes introduce incompatible and undocumented changes into their application programming interfaces (APIs). A developer whose software uses the API must determine how to migrate it in response. Existing approaches for determining migration paths are often of limited help, requiring speci c library characteristics, or resolving a small subset of actual changes. We present a new approach, matching via structural general- ization (MSG), that recommends replacement functionality from a new API version, based on its structural similarity to functionality removed from the old API. We rei ed our approach in a prototype API change recommendation tool called Umami, which we used to resolve binary incompatible changes in 20 Java library migrations, comparing its accuracy to other analysis and change recommendation techniques. Our results suggest MSG is complementary to existing approaches, providing useful results in API migration situations where the others fail.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207