Investigating Next Steps in Static API-Misuse Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) often impose constraints such as call order or preconditions. API misuses, i.e., usages violating these constraints, may cause software crashes, data-loss, and vulnerabilities. Researchers developed several approaches to detect API misuses, typically still resulting in low recall and precision. In this work, we investigate ways to improve API-misuse detection. We design MUDetect, an API-misuse detector that builds on the strengths of existing detectors and tries to mitigate their weaknesses. MUDetect uses a new graph representation of API usages that captures different types of API misuses and a systematically designed ranking strategy that effectively improves precision. Evaluation shows that MUDetect identifies real-world API misuses with twice the recall of previous detectors and 2.5x higher precision. It even achieves almost 4x higher precision and recall, when mining patterns across projects, rather than from only the target project.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".