Synthesis of interface specifications for Java classes

By Rajeev Alur, Pavol Cerný, Parthasarathy Madhusudan, Wonhong Nam. ACM-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 2005

352 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Computational Theory and Mathematics, Information Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cb586f104430710a98dce03d1339b127a76c5856

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Computational Theory and Mathematics

In Information Systems

Citations in the corpus

Mining API patterns as partial orders from source code: from usage scenarios to specifications (2007, methodology): “A number of approaches [3, 12, 24] have been developed to apply static analysis or model checking on the API implementation code to synthesize permissive API usage patterns that are allowed by the API implementation.”
Bayesian specification learning for finding API usage errors (2017, background): “Most efforts in this area [6–8, 21, 25, 35, 42, 48, 55–57] focus on qualitative specifications, typically finite automata.”
Detecting object usage anomalies (2007, methodology): “Other researchers used approaches such as grammar learning [3] or based on model checking [2, 16, 21].”
Finding Likely Errors with Bayesian Specifications (2017, background): “The problem of specification learning has been studied for a long time (Ammons et al. 2002, 2003; Alur et al. 2005; Goues & Weimer 2009).”
Perracotta: mining temporal API rules from imperfect traces (2006, methodology): “Although early work in this area emphasized st atic analysis of the program text [3, 16, 19, 48], more recently sev eral researchers have explored the possibility of using a program’s dynamic behavior on sample executions to infer a specificat on [4, 11, 17, 40, 49].”
MAPO: Mining and Recommending API Usage Patterns (2009, methodology): “To mine automata, some approaches [4, 5, 21] use the Angluin’s algorithm [6], and other approaches [9, 11, 14, 28, 31, 36] adopt various customized techniques.”
Jungloid mining: helping to navigate the API jungle (2005, background): “Whaley, Martin, and Lam [15] and Alur et al. [ 1 ] extract temporal interfaces from Java source code by static analysis rather than mining.”
Graph-based mining of multiple object usage patterns (2009, methodology): “Some other approaches take as input a single type and derive the valid usage patterns as an FSA using static analysis or model checking [ 2 , 13, 20].”
Finding application errors and security flaws using PQL: a program query language (2005, neutral): “[3] generalize this to automatically produce small, expressive finite state machines with respect to cert ain predicates over an object.”
Guided GUI testing of android apps with minimal restart and approximate learning (2013, methodology): “The technique has been successfully applied to modular verification [13] and API specification inference [5].”
DynaMine: finding common error patterns by mining software revision histories (2005, background): “[2] generalize this to automatically produce small, expressive finite state machines with respect to certain predicates over an object.”
Prospex: Protocol Specification Extraction (2009, methodology): “Automatically extracting a protocol state machine from a set of observed protocol interactions is related to the problem of extracting temporal specifications for software components (such as API or method call sequences) from program traces [45], [55]–[58].”
Synthesizing API usage examples (2012, background): “many specification mining techniques [30], [31], [32] where the edges represent method calls and an accepting sequence corresponds to a valid ordering) (lines 24–26).”
Javert: fully automatic mining of general temporal properties from dynamic traces (2008, background): “Various static analyses [3,16,30] take as input a type and produce as output an automaton that encodes legal call sequences of operations on that type.”
Extracting Automata from Recurrent Neural Networks Using Queries and Counterexamples (2017, methodology): “This version is adapted from Alur et al. (2005), where the membership and equivalence queries have been made more explicit than they appear in Angluin (1987).”