Generating API Call Rules from Version History and Stack Overflow Posts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have shown that related functions can be mined from groupings of functions found in the version history of a system. Our first contribution is to expand this approach to a community of applications and set of similar applications. Android developers use a set of application programming interface (API) calls when creating apps. These API calls are used in similar ways across multiple applications. By clustering co-changing API calls used by 230 Android apps across 12k versions, we are able to predict the API calls that individual app developers will use with an average precision of 75% and recall of 22%. When we make predictions from the same category of app, such as Finance, we attain precision and recall of 81% and 28%, respectively. Our second contribution can be characterized as “programmers who discussed these functions were also interested in these functions.” Informal discussions on Stack Overflow provide a rich source of information about related API calls as developers provide solutions to common problems. By grouping API calls contained in each positively voted answer posts, we are able to create rules that predict the calls that app developers will use in their own apps with an average precision of 66% and recall of 13%. For comparison purposes, we developed a baseline by clustering co-changing API calls for each individual app and generated association rules from them. The baseline predicts API calls used by app developers with a precision and recall of 36% and 23%, respectively.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it