PyMigBench: A Benchmark for Python Library Migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developers heavily rely on Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) from libraries to build their projects. However, libraries might become obsolete, or new libraries with better APIs might become available. In such cases, developers replace the used libraries with alternative libraries, a process known as library migration. Since manually migrating between libraries is tedious and error prone, there has been a lot of effort towards automated library migration. However, most of the current research on automated library migration focuses on Java libraries, and even more so on version migrations of the same library. Despite the increasing popularity of Python, limited research has investigated migration between Python libraries. To provide the necessary data for advancing the development of Python library migration tools, this paper contributes PyMigBench, a benchmark of real Python library migrations.PyMigBench contains 59 analogous library pairs and 75 real migrations with migration-related code changes in 161 Python files across 57 client repositories.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".