FACER: An API Usage-based Code-example Recommender for Opportunistic Reuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To save time, developers often search for code examples that implement their desired software features. Existing code search techniques typically focus on finding code snippets for a single given query, which means that developers need to perform a separate search for each desired functionality. In this paper, we pro-pose FACER (Feature-driven API usage-based Code Examples Recommender), a technique that avoids repeated searches through opportunistic reuse. Specifically, given the selected code snippet that matches the initial search query, FACER finds and suggests related code snippets that represent features that the developer may want to implement next. FACER first constructs a code fact repository by parsing the source code of open-source Java projects to obtain methods’ textual information, call graphs, and Application Programming Interface (API) usages. It then detects unique features by clustering methods based on similar API us-ages, where each cluster represents a feature or functionality. Finally, it detects frequently co-occurring features across projects using frequent pattern mining and recommends related methods from the mined patterns. To evaluate FACER, we run it on 120 Java Android apps from GitHub. We first manually validate that the detected method clusters represent methods with similar functionality. We then perform an automated evaluation to determine the best parameters (e.g., similarity threshold) for FACER. We recruit 10 professional developers along with 39 experienced students to judge FACER’s recommendation of related methods. Our results show that, on average, FACER’s recommendations are 80% precise. We also survey a total of 20 professional Android and Java developers to understand their code search and reuse experiences, and also to obtain their feedback on the usability and usefulness of FACER. The survey results show that 95% of our surveyed professional developers find the idea of related method recommendations useful during code reuse.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".