DAInfer: Inferring API Aliasing Specifications from Library Documentation via Neurosymbolic Optimization
Article No.: 109, Pages 2469 - 2492
Abstract
Modern software systems heavily rely on various libraries, necessitating understanding API semantics in static analysis. However, summarizing API semantics remains challenging due to complex implementations or the unavailability of library code. This paper presents DAInfer, a novel approach for inferring API aliasing specifications from library documentation. Specifically, we employ Natural Language Processing (NLP) models to interpret informal semantic information provided by the documentation, which enables us to reduce the specification inference to an optimization problem. Furthermore, we propose a new technique called neurosymbolic optimization to efficiently solve the optimization problem, yielding the desired API aliasing specifications. We have implemented DAInfer as a tool and evaluated it upon Java classes from several popular libraries. The results indicate that DAInfer infers the API aliasing specifications with a precision of 79.78% and a recall of 82.29%, averagely consuming 5.35 seconds per class. These obtained aliasing specifications further facilitate alias analysis, revealing 80.05% more alias facts for API return values in 15 Java projects. Additionally, the tool supports taint analysis, identifying 85 more taint flows in 23 Android apps. These results demonstrate the practical value of DAInfer in library-aware static analysis.
References
[1]
Uri Alon, Meital Zilberstein, Omer Levy, and Eran Yahav. 2019. code2vec: learning distributed representations of code. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 3, POPL (2019), Article 40, jan, 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290353
[2]
Uri Alon, Meital Zilberstein, Omer Levy, and Eran Yahav. 2019. code2vec: learning distributed representations of code. Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 3, POPL (2019), 40:1–40:29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290353
[3]
Lars Ole Andersen. 1994. Program analysis and specialization for the C programming language.
[4]
Anastasios Antoniadis, Nikos Filippakis, Paddy Krishnan, Raghavendra Ramesh, Nicholas Allen, and Yannis Smaragdakis. 2020. Static analysis of Java enterprise applications: frameworks and caches, the elephants in the room. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2020, London, UK, June 15-20, 2020, Alastair F. Donaldson and Emina Torlak (Eds.). ACM, 794–807. https://doi.org/10.1145/3385412.3386026
[5]
Steven Arzt and Eric Bodden. 2016. StubDroid: automatic inference of precise data-flow summaries for the android framework. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2016, Austin, TX, USA, May 14-22, 2016, Laura K. Dillon, Willem Visser, and Laurie A. Williams (Eds.). ACM, 725–735. https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884816
[6]
Steven Arzt, Siegfried Rasthofer, Christian Fritz, Eric Bodden, Alexandre Bartel, Jacques Klein, Yves Le Traon, Damien Octeau, and Patrick D. McDaniel. 2014. FlowDroid: precise context, flow, field, object-sensitive and lifecycle-aware taint analysis for Android apps. In ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI ’14, Edinburgh, United Kingdom - June 09 - 11, 2014, Michael F. P. O’Boyle and Keshav Pingali (Eds.). ACM, 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1145/2594291.2594299
[7]
ATLAS. 2023. Soure code of ATLAS. https://github.com/obastani/atlas [Online; accessed 13-Sept-2023]
[8]
Osbert Bastani, Rahul Sharma, Alex Aiken, and Percy Liang. 2018. Active learning of points-to specifications. In Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2018, Philadelphia, PA, USA, June 18-22, 2018, Jeffrey S. Foster and Dan Grossman (Eds.). ACM, 678–692. https://doi.org/10.1145/3192366.3192383
[9]
Pavol Bielik, Veselin Raychev, and Martin T. Vechev. 2016. PHOG: Probabilistic Model for Code. In Proceedings of the 33nd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2016, New York City, NY, USA, June 19-24, 2016, Maria-Florina Balcan and Kilian Q. Weinberger (Eds.) (JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, Vol. 48). JMLR.org, 2933–2942. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v48/bielik16.html
[10]
Nikolaj S. Bjørner, Anh-Dung Phan, and Lars Fleckenstein. 2015. ν Z - An Optimizing SMT Solver. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems - 21st International Conference, TACAS 2015, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2015, London, UK, April 11-18, 2015. Proceedings, Christel Baier and Cesare Tinelli (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9035). Springer, 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_14
[11]
Arianna Blasi, Alberto Goffi, Konstantin Kuznetsov, Alessandra Gorla, Michael D. Ernst, Mauro Pezzè, and Sergio Delgado Castellanos. 2018. Translating code comments to procedure specifications. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA 2018, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, July 16-21, 2018, Frank Tip and Eric Bodden (Eds.). ACM, 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1145/3213846.3213872
[12]
Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual, Hugo Larochelle, Marc’Aurelio Ranzato, Raia Hadsell, Maria-Florina Balcan, and Hsuan-Tien Lin (Eds.). https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/hash/1457c0d6bfcb4967418bfb8ac142f64a-Abstract.html
[13]
Simon Butler, Michel Wermelinger, and Yijun Yu. 2015. A survey of the forms of Java reference names. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Program Comprehension, ICPC 2015, Florence/Firenze, Italy, May 16-24, 2015, Andrea De Lucia, Christian Bird, and Rocco Oliveto (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPC.2015.30
[14]
Cristiano Calcagno, Dino Distefano, Peter W. O’Hearn, and Hongseok Yang. 2011. Compositional Shape Analysis by Means of Bi-Abduction. J. ACM, 58, 6 (2011), 26:1–26:66. https://doi.org/10.1145/2049697.2049700
[15]
Bor-Yuh Evan Chang, Cezara Dragoi, Roman Manevich, Noam Rinetzky, and Xavier Rival. 2020. Shape Analysis. Found. Trends Program. Lang., 6, 1-2 (2020), 1–158. https://doi.org/10.1561/2500000037
[16]
Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Pondé de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harrison Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Joshua Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. 2021. Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code. CoRR, abs/2107.03374 (2021), arXiv:2107.03374. arxiv:2107.03374
[17]
Victor Chibotaru, Benjamin Bichsel, Veselin Raychev, and Martin T. Vechev. 2019. Scalable taint specification inference with big code. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2019, Phoenix, AZ, USA, June 22-26, 2019, Kathryn S. McKinley and Kathleen Fisher (Eds.). ACM, 760–774. https://doi.org/10.1145/3314221.3314648
[18]
Nancy Chinchor. 1998. Appendix E: MUC-7 Named Entity Task Definition (version 3.5). In Seventh Message Understanding Conference: Proceedings of a Conference Held in Fairfax, Virginia, USA, MUC 1998, April 29 - May 1, 1998. ACL. https://aclanthology.org/M98-1028/
[19]
Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems. CoRR, abs/2110.14168 (2021), arXiv:2110.14168. arxiv:2110.14168
[20]
DAInfer. 2024. Implementation of DAInfer. https://github.com/DAInfer/DAInfer [Online; accessed 28-Apr-2024]
[21]
Leonardo Mendonça de Moura and Nikolaj Bjørner. 2008. Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, 14th International Conference, TACAS 2008, Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2008, Budapest, Hungary, March 29-April 6, 2008. Proceedings, C. R. Ramakrishnan and Jakob Rehof (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4963). Springer, 337–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24
[22]
Jan Eberhardt, Samuel Steffen, Veselin Raychev, and Martin T. Vechev. 2019. Unsupervised learning of API alias specifications. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2019, Phoenix, AZ, USA, June 22-26, 2019, Kathryn S. McKinley and Kathleen Fisher (Eds.). ACM, 745–759. https://doi.org/10.1145/3314221.3314640
[23]
F-Droid. 2023. F-Droid. https://f-droid.org/ [Online; accessed 1-Sept-2023]
[24]
Pratik Fegade and Christian Wimmer. 2020. Scalable pointer analysis of data structures using semantic models. In CC ’20: 29th International Conference on Compiler Construction, San Diego, CA, USA, February 22-23, 2020, Louis-Noël Pouchet and Alexandra Jimborean (Eds.). ACM, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377555.3377885
[25]
Zhangyin Feng, Daya Guo, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Xiaocheng Feng, Ming Gong, Linjun Shou, Bing Qin, Ting Liu, Daxin Jiang, and Ming Zhou. 2020. CodeBERT: A Pre-Trained Model for Programming and Natural Languages. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, Trevor Cohn, Yulan He, and Yang Liu (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Online. 1536–1547. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.139
[26]
W Nelson Francis and Henry Kucera. 1967. Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press. Kuperman, V., Estes, Z., Brysbaert, M., & Warriner, AB (2014). Emotion and language: Valence and arousal affect word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143 (1967), 1065–1081.
[27]
Timon Gehr, Dimitar K. Dimitrov, and Martin T. Vechev. 2015. Learning Commutativity Specifications. In Computer Aided Verification - 27th International Conference, CAV 2015, San Francisco, CA, USA, July 18-24, 2015, Proceedings, Part I, Daniel Kroening and Corina S. Pasareanu (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9206). Springer, 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21690-4_18
[28]
Jingxuan He, Cheng-Chun Lee, Veselin Raychev, and Martin T. Vechev. 2021. Learning to find naming issues with big code and small supervision. In PLDI ’21: 42nd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Virtual Event, Canada, June 20-25, 2021, Stephen N. Freund and Eran Yahav (Eds.). ACM, 296–311. https://doi.org/10.1145/3453483.3454045
[29]
Abram Hindle, Earl T. Barr, Zhendong Su, Mark Gabel, and Premkumar T. Devanbu. 2012. On the naturalness of software. In 34th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2012, June 2-9, 2012, Zurich, Switzerland, Martin Glinz, Gail C. Murphy, and Mauro Pezzè (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 837–847. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2012.6227135
[30]
Bertrand Jeannet, Alexey Loginov, Thomas W. Reps, and Mooly Sagiv. 2010. A relational approach to interprocedural shape analysis. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 32, 2 (2010), 5:1–5:52. https://doi.org/10.1145/1667048.1667050
[31]
Albert Qiaochu Jiang, Wenda Li, Szymon Tworkowski, Konrad Czechowski, Tomasz Odrzygózdz, Piotr Milos, Yuhuai Wu, and Mateja Jamnik. 2022. Thor: Wielding Hammers to Integrate Language Models and Automated Theorem Provers. In NeurIPS. http://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/hash/377c25312668e48f2e531e2f2c422483-Abstract-Conference.html
[32]
Albert Qiaochu Jiang, Sean Welleck, Jin Peng Zhou, Timothée Lacroix, Jiacheng Liu, Wenda Li, Mateja Jamnik, Guillaume Lample, and Yuhuai Wu. 2023. Draft, Sketch, and Prove: Guiding Formal Theorem Provers with Informal Proofs. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023. OpenReview.net. https://openreview.net/pdf?id=SMa9EAovKMC
[33]
Guillaume Lample, Timothée Lacroix, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Aurélien Rodriguez, Amaury Hayat, Thibaut Lavril, Gabriel Ebner, and Xavier Martinet. 2022. HyperTree Proof Search for Neural Theorem Proving. In NeurIPS. http://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/hash/a8901c5e85fb8e1823bbf0f755053672-Abstract-Conference.html
[34]
George A. Miller. 1995. WordNet: a lexical database for English. Commun. ACM, 38, 11 (1995), nov, 39–41. issn:0001-0782 https://doi.org/10.1145/219717.219748
[35]
Manish Motwani and Yuriy Brun. 2019. Automatically generating precise Oracles from structured natural language specifications. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2019, Montreal, QC, Canada, May 25-31, 2019, Joanne M. Atlee, Tevfik Bultan, and Jon Whittle (Eds.). IEEE / ACM, 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2019.00035
[36]
NLTK. 2023. Natural Language Toolkit. https://www.nltk.org/index.html [Online; accessed 7-Sep-2023]
[37]
OpenAI. 2022. Introducing ChatGPT. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt
[38]
OpenAI. 2023. GPT-3.5. https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-3-5 [Online; accessed 7-Sep-2023]
[39]
OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. arxiv:2303.08774.
[40]
Rahul Pandita, Xusheng Xiao, Hao Zhong, Tao Xie, Stephen Oney, and Amit M. Paradkar. 2012. Inferring method specifications from natural language API descriptions. In 34th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2012, June 2-9, 2012, Zurich, Switzerland, Martin Glinz, Gail C. Murphy, and Mauro Pezzè (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 815–825. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2012.6227137
[41]
Veselin Raychev, Martin T. Vechev, and Andreas Krause. 2019. Predicting program properties from ’big code’. Commun. ACM, 62, 3 (2019), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306204
[42]
Veselin Raychev, Martin T. Vechev, and Eran Yahav. 2014. Code completion with statistical language models. In ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI ’14, Edinburgh, United Kingdom - June 09 - 11, 2014, Michael F. P. O’Boyle and Keshav Pingali (Eds.). ACM, 419–428. https://doi.org/10.1145/2594291.2594321
[43]
Xiaoxue Ren, Xinyuan Ye, Zhenchang Xing, Xin Xia, Xiwei Xu, Liming Zhu, and Jianling Sun. 2020. API-Misuse Detection Driven by Fine-Grained API-Constraint Knowledge Graph. In 35th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2020, Melbourne, Australia, September 21-25, 2020. IEEE, 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1145/3324884.3416551
[44]
Atanas Rountev, Mariana Sharp, and Guoqing Xu. 2008. IDE dataflow analysis in the presence of large object-oriented libraries. In International Conference on Compiler Construction. 53–68.
[45]
Shmuel Sagiv, Thomas W. Reps, and Reinhard Wilhelm. 2002. Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 24, 3 (2002), 217–298. https://doi.org/10.1145/514188.514190
[46]
Qingkai Shi, Xiao Xiao, Rongxin Wu, Jinguo Zhou, Gang Fan, and Charles Zhang. 2018. Pinpoint: fast and precise sparse value flow analysis for million lines of code. In Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2018, Philadelphia, PA, USA, June 18-22, 2018, Jeffrey S. Foster and Dan Grossman (Eds.). ACM, 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1145/3192366.3192418
[47]
Sharon Shoham, Eran Yahav, Stephen Fink, and Marco Pistoia. 2007. Static specification mining using automata-based abstractions. In Proceedings of the ACM/SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA 2007, London, UK, July 9-12, 2007, David S. Rosenblum and Sebastian G. Elbaum (Eds.). ACM, 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1145/1273463.1273487
[48]
Johannes Späth, Lisa Nguyen Quang Do, Karim Ali, and Eric Bodden. 2016. Boomerang: Demand-Driven Flow- and Context-Sensitive Pointer Analysis for Java (Artifact). Dagstuhl Artifacts Ser., 2, 1 (2016), 12:1–12:2. https://doi.org/10.4230/DARTS.2.1.12
[49]
Lin Tan, Xiaolan Zhang, Xiao Ma, Weiwei Xiong, and Yuanyuan Zhou. 2008. AutoISES: Automatically Inferring Security Specification and Detecting Violations. In Proceedings of the 17th USENIX Security Symposium, July 28-August 1, 2008, San Jose, CA, USA, Paul C. van Oorschot (Ed.). USENIX Association, 379–394. http://www.usenix.org/events/sec08/tech/full_papers/tan_l/tan_l.pdf
[50]
John Toman and Dan Grossman. 2017. Taming the Static Analysis Beast. In 2nd Summit on Advances in Programming Languages, SNAPL 2017, May 7-10, 2017, Asilomar, CA, USA, Benjamin S. Lerner, Rastislav Bodík, and Shriram Krishnamurthi (Eds.) (LIPIcs, Vol. 71). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 18:1–18:14. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.SNAPL.2017.18
[51]
Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is All you Need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, Isabelle Guyon, Ulrike von Luxburg, Samy Bengio, Hanna M. Wallach, Rob Fergus, S. V. N. Vishwanathan, and Roman Garnett (Eds.). 5998–6008. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/hash/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Abstract.html
[52]
Ying Wang, Ming Wen, Zhenwei Liu, Rongxin Wu, Rui Wang, Bo Yang, Hai Yu, Zhiliang Zhu, and Shing-Chi Cheung. 2018. Do the dependency conflicts in my project matter? In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2018, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA, November 04-09, 2018, Gary T. Leavens, Alessandro Garcia, and Corina S. Pasareanu (Eds.). ACM, 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1145/3236024.3236056
[53]
Sean Welleck, Jiacheng Liu, Ximing Lu, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Yejin Choi. 2022. NaturalProver: Grounded Mathematical Proof Generation with Language Models. In NeurIPS. http://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/hash/1fc548a8243ad06616eee731e0572927-Abstract-Conference.html
[54]
Yuhuai Wu, Albert Qiaochu Jiang, Wenda Li, Markus N. Rabe, Charles Staats, Mateja Jamnik, and Christian Szegedy. 2022. Autoformalization with Large Language Models. In NeurIPS. http://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/hash/d0c6bc641a56bebee9d985b937307367-Abstract-Conference.html
[55]
Peisen Yao, Jinguo Zhou, Xiao Xiao, Qingkai Shi, Rongxin Wu, and Charles Zhang. 2021. Efficient Path-Sensitive Data-Dependence Analysis. CoRR, abs/2109.07923 (2021), arXiv:2109.07923. arxiv:2109.07923
[56]
Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Thomas L. Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2023. Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models. CoRR, abs/2305.10601 (2023), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.10601 arXiv:2305.10601.
[57]
Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik R. Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2023. ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023. OpenReview.net. https://openreview.net/pdf?id=WE_vluYUL-X
[58]
Jane Yen, Tamás Lévai, Qinyuan Ye, Xiang Ren, Ramesh Govindan, and Barath Raghavan. 2021. Semi-automated protocol disambiguation and code generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGCOMM 2021 Conference (SIGCOMM ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 272–286. isbn:9781450383837 https://doi.org/10.1145/3452296.3472910
[59]
Hamed Zamani and W Bruce Croft. 2017. Relevance-based word embedding. In Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 505–514.
[60]
Juan Zhai, Yu Shi, Minxue Pan, Guian Zhou, Yongxiang Liu, Chunrong Fang, Shiqing Ma, Lin Tan, and Xiangyu Zhang. 2020. C2S: translating natural language comments to formal program specifications. In ESEC/FSE ’20: 28th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, Virtual Event, USA, November 8-13, 2020, Prem Devanbu, Myra B. Cohen, and Thomas Zimmermann (Eds.). ACM, 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3368089.3409716
[61]
Hao Zhong, Lu Zhang, Tao Xie, and Hong Mei. 2009. Inferring Resource Specifications from Natural Language API Documentation. In ASE 2009, 24th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, November 16-20, 2009. IEEE Computer Society, 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASE.2009.94
[62]
Denny Zhou, Nathanael Schärli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Claire Cui, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc V. Le, and Ed H. Chi. 2023. Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023. OpenReview.net. https://openreview.net/pdf?id=WZH7099tgfM
Index Terms
- DAInfer: Inferring API Aliasing Specifications from Library Documentation via Neurosymbolic Optimization
Recommendations
Unsupervised learning of API aliasing specifications
PLDI 2019: Proceedings of the 40th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and ImplementationReal world applications make heavy use of powerful libraries and frameworks, posing a significant challenge for static analysis as the library implementation may be very complex or unavailable. Thus, obtaining specifications that summarize the behaviors ...
The undecidability of aliasing
Alias analysis is a prerequisite for performing most of the common program analyses such as reaching-definitions analysis or live-variables analysis. Landi [1992] recently established that it is impossible to compute statically precise alias information—...
Active learning of points-to specifications
PLDI '18When analyzing programs, large libraries pose significant challenges to static points-to analysis. A popular solution is to have a human analyst provide points-to specifications that summarize relevant behaviors of library code, which can substantially ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
July 2024
2770 pages
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 12 July 2024
Published in PACMSE Volume 1, Issue FSE
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Funding Sources
- Natural Science Foundation of China
- Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Commission
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 206Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)206
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)59
Reflects downloads up to 13 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in