AURA: A Hybrid Approach to Identify Framework Evolution
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
Software frameworks and libraries are indispensable to today’s software systems. As they evolve, it is often timeconsuming for developers to keep their code up-to-date, so approaches have been proposed to facilitate this. Usually, these approaches cannot automatically identify change rules for one-replaced-by-many and many-replaced-by-one methods, and they trade off recall for higher precision using one or more experimentally-evaluated thresholds. We introduce AURA, a novel hybrid approach that combines call dependency and text similarity analyses to overcome these limitations. We implement it in a Java system and compare it on five frameworks with three previous approaches by Dagenais and Robillard, M. Kim et al., and Schäfer et al. The comparison shows that, on average, the recall of AURA is 53.07% higher while its precision is similar, e.g., 0.10 % lower. 1.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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