Just Accepted
Automatically Recommend Code Updates: Are We There Yet?
Authors: 
Yue Liu, Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn, Yonghui Liu, 
Patanamon Thongtanunam, Li LiAuthors Info & Claims
Accepted on 03 July 2024
Abstract
In recent years, large pre-trained Language Models of Code (CodeLMs) have shown promising results on various software engineering tasks. One such task is automatic code update recommendation, which transforms outdated code snippets into their approved and revised counterparts. Although many CodeLM-based approaches have been proposed, claiming high accuracy, their effectiveness and reliability on real-world code update tasks remain questionable. In this paper, we present the first extensive evaluation of state-of-the-art CodeLMs for automatically recommending code updates. We assess their performance on two diverse datasets of paired updated methods, considering factors such as temporal evolution, project specificity, method size, and update complexity. Our results reveal that while CodeLMs exhibit higher performance in settings that ignore temporal information, they struggle in more realistic time-wise scenarios and generalize poorly to new projects. Furthermore, CodeLM performance decreases significantly for larger methods and more complex updates. Furthermore, we observe that many CodeLM-generated “updates” are actually null, especially in time-wise settings, and meaningful edits remain challenging. Our findings highlight the significant gap between the perceived and actual effectiveness of CodeLMs for real-world code update recommendation and emphasize the need for more research on improving their practicality, robustness, and generalizability.
References
[1]
(2021) Google bigquery. [Online]. Available: https://console.cloud.google.com/marketplace/details/github/github-repos
[2]
(2022) Gerrit code review. [Online]. Available: https://www.gerritcodereview.com/
[3]
Kotlin, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://kotlinlang.org/
[4]
(2024) Android’s gerrit code review repositories. [Online]. Available: https://android-review.googlesource.com/
[5]
(2024) Google’s gerrit code review repositories. [Online]. Available: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/
[6]
(2024) Ovirt’s gerrit code review repositories. [Online]. Available: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/
[7]
A. Agrawal and T. Menzies, “Is “better data” better than “better data miners”?” in 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1050–1061.
[8]
A. Agrawal, T. Menzies, L. L. Minku, M. Wagner, and Z. Yu, “Better software analytics via “duo”: Data mining algorithms using/used-by optimizers,” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 2099–2136, 2020.
[9]
S. Alagarsamy, C. Tantithamthavorn, and A. Aleti, “A3test: assertion-augmented automated test case generation (2023),” org/10.48550/ARXIV, vol. 2302.
[10]
S. Alagarsamy, C. Tantithamthavorn, C. Arora, and A. Aleti, “Enhancing large language models for text-to-testcase generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11910, 2024.
[11]
T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell et al., “Language models are few-shot learners,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901, 2020.
[12]
C. Chen, T. Su, G. Meng, Z. Xing, and Y. Liu, “From ui design image to gui skeleton: a neural machine translator to bootstrap mobile gui implementation,” in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2018, pp. 665–676.
[13]
J. Chen, C. Chen, Z. Xing, X. Xu, L. Zhut, G. Li, and J. Wang, “Unblind your apps: Predicting natural-language labels for mobile gui components by deep learning,” in 2020 IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 2020, pp. 322–334.
[14]
M. Chen, J. Tworek, H. Jun, Q. Yuan, H. P. d. O. Pinto, J. Kaplan, H. Edwards, Y. Burda, N. Joseph, G. Brockman et al., “Evaluating large language models trained on code,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021.
[15]
T. Copeland, PMD applied. Centennial Books San Francisco, 2005, vol. 10.
[16]
J. Czerwonka, M. Greiler, and J. Tilford, “Code reviews do not find bugs. how the current code review best practice slows us down,” in 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, vol. 2. IEEE, 2015, pp. 27–28.
[17]
H. K. Dam, T. Pham, S. W. Ng, T. Tran, J. Grundy, A. Ghose, T. Kim, and C.-J. Kim, “Lessons learned from using a deep tree-based model for software defect prediction in practice,” in 2019 IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). IEEE, 2019, pp. 46–57.
[18]
H. K. Dam, T. Tran, T. Pham, S. W. Ng, J. Grundy, and A. Ghose, “Automatic feature learning for predicting vulnerable software components,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 67–85, 2018.
[19]
A. Fan, B. Gokkaya, M. Harman, M. Lyubarskiy, S. Sengupta, S. Yoo, and J. M. Zhang, “Large language models for software engineering: Survey and open problems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03533, 2023.
[20]
Z. Feng, D. Guo, D. Tang, N. Duan, X. Feng, M. Gong, L. Shou, B. Qin, T. Liu, D. Jiang et al., “Codebert: A pre-trained model for programming and natural languages,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, 2020, pp. 1536–1547.
[21]
M. Fu, V. Nguyen, C. Tantithamthavorn, D. Phung, and T. Le, “Vision transformer inspired automated vulnerability repair,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 1–29, 2024.
[22]
M. Fu, V. Nguyen, C. K. Tantithamthavorn, T. Le, and D. Phung, “Vulexplainer: A transformer-based hierarchical distillation for explaining vulnerability types,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 4550–4565, 2023.
[23]
M. Fu, J. Pasuksmit, and C. Tantithamthavorn, “Ai for devsecops: A landscape and future opportunities,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04839, 2024.
[24]
M. Fu and C. Tantithamthavorn, “Linevul: A transformer-based line-level vulnerability prediction,” in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, 2022, pp. 608–620.
[25]
M. Fu, C. Tantithamthavorn, T. Le, Y. Kume, V. Nguyen, D. Phung, and J. Grundy, “Aibughunter: A practical tool for predicting, classifying and repairing software vulnerabilities,” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 29, no. 1, p. 4, 2024.
[26]
M. Fu, C. Tantithamthavorn, T. Le, V. Nguyen, and D. Phung, “Vulrepair: a t5-based automated software vulnerability repair,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM joint european software engineering conference and symposium on the foundations of software engineering, 2022, pp. 935–947.
[27]
M. Fu, C. K. Tantithamthavorn, V. Nguyen, and T. Le, “Chatgpt for vulnerability detection, classification, and repair: How far are we?” in 2023 30th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 632–636.
[28]
W. Fu, T. Menzies, and X. Shen, “Tuning for software analytics: Is it really necessary?” Information and Software Technology, vol. 76, pp. 135–146, 2016.
[29]
B. Ghotra, S. McIntosh, and A. E. Hassan, “Revisiting the impact of classification techniques on the performance of defect prediction models,” in 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, vol. 1. IEEE, 2015, pp. 789–800.
[30]
——, “A large-scale study of the impact of feature selection techniques on defect classification models,” in 2017 IEEE/ACM 14th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). IEEE, 2017, pp. 146–157.
[31]
B. Góis Mateus and M. Martinez, “An empirical study on quality of android applications written in kotlin language,” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 3356–3393, 2019.
[32]
I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep learning. MIT press, 2016.
[33]
X. Gu, H. Zhang, and S. Kim, “Deep code search,” in 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 2018, pp. 933–944.
[34]
D. Guo, S. Lu, N. Duan, Y. Wang, M. Zhou, and J. Yin, “Unixcoder: Unified cross-modal pre-training for code representation,” in Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 2022, pp. 7212–7225.
[35]
H. Harkous, K. Fawaz, R. Lebret, F. Schaub, K. G. Shin, and K. Aberer, “Polisis: Automated analysis and presentation of privacy policies using deep learning,” in 27th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 18), 2018, pp. 531–548.
[36]
Y. Hong, C. Tantithamthavorn, J. Pasuksmit, P. Thongtanunam, A. Friedman, X. Zhao, and A. Krasikov, “Practitioners’ challenges and perceptions of ci build failure predictions at atlassian,” in Proceedings of the ACM joint european software engineering conference and symposium on the foundations of software engineering (ESEC/FSE), 2024.
[37]
Y. Hong, C. Tantithamthavorn, P. Thongtanunam, and A. Aleti, “Commentfinder: a simpler, faster, more accurate code review comments recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, 2022, pp. 507–519.
[38]
Y. Hong, C. K. Tantithamthavorn, and P. P. Thongtanunam, “Where should i look at? recommending lines that reviewers should pay attention to,” in 2022 IEEE international conference on software analysis, evolution and reengineering (SANER). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1034–1045.
[39]
X. Hou, Y. Zhao, Y. Liu, Z. Yang, K. Wang, L. Li, X. Luo, D. Lo, J. Grundy, and H. Wang, “Large language models for software engineering: A systematic literature review,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10620, 2023.
[40]
X. Huo, F. Thung, M. Li, D. Lo, and S.-T. Shi, “Deep transfer bug localization,” IEEE Transactions on software engineering, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 1368–1380, 2019.
[41]
H. Husain, H.-H. Wu, T. Gazit, M. Allamanis, and M. Brockschmidt, “Codesearchnet challenge: Evaluating the state of semantic code search,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09436, 2019.
[42]
M. Izadi, R. Gismondi, and G. Gousios, “Codefill: Multi-token code completion by jointly learning from structure and naming sequences,” in 2022 IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 2022.
[43]
J. Jiarpakdee, C. Tantithamthavorn, and A. E. Hassan, “The impact of correlated metrics on defect models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.10271, 2018.
[44]
J. Jiarpakdee, C. Tantithamthavorn, A. Ihara, and K. Matsumoto, “A study of redundant metrics in defect prediction datasets,” in 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW). IEEE, 2016, pp. 51–52.
[45]
J. Jiarpakdee, C. Tantithamthavorn, and C. Treude, “Autospearman: Automatically mitigating correlated software metrics for interpreting defect models,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). IEEE Computer Society, 2018, pp. 92–103.
[46]
J. Jiarpakdee, C. K. Tantithamthavorn, H. K. Dam, and J. Grundy, “An empirical study of model-agnostic techniques for defect prediction models,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 166–185, 2020.
[47]
M. Jimenez, R. Rwemalika, M. Papadakis, F. Sarro, Y. Le Traon, and M. Harman, “The importance of accounting for real-world labelling when predicting software vulnerabilities,” in Proceedings of the 2019 27th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, 2019, pp. 695–705.
[48]
X.-Y. Jing, F. Wu, X. Dong, and B. Xu, “An improved sda based defect prediction framework for both within-project and cross-project class-imbalance problems,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 321–339, 2016.
[49]
J. D. M.-W. C. Kenton and L. K. Toutanova, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” in Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, 2019, pp. 4171–4186.
[50]
S. Kim, J. Zhao, Y. Tian, and S. Chandra, “Code prediction by feeding trees to transformers,” in 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 2021, pp. 150–162.
[51]
S. Kim and M. D. Ernst, “Prioritizing warning categories by analyzing software history,” in Fourth International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR’07: ICSE Workshops 2007). IEEE, 2007, pp. 27–27.
[52]
O. Kononenko, O. Baysal, and M. W. Godfrey, “Code review quality: How developers see it,” in Proceedings of the 38th international conference on software engineering, 2016, pp. 1028–1038.
[53]
Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning,” nature, vol. 521, no. 7553, pp. 436–444, 2015.
[54]
J. Li, G. Li, Z. Li, Z. Jin, X. Hu, K. Zhang, and Z. Fu, “Codeeditor: Learning to edit source code with pre-trained models,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1–22, 2023.
[55]
Z. Li, S. Lu, D. Guo, N. Duan, S. Jannu, G. Jenks, D. Majumder, J. Green, A. Svyatkovskiy, S. Fu et al., “Automating code review activities by large-scale pre-training,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, 2022, pp. 1035–1047.
[56]
F. Liu, G. Li, Y. Zhao, and Z. Jin, “Multi-task learning based pre-trained language model for code completion,” in Proceedings of the 35th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2020, pp. 473–485.
[57]
P. Liu, L. Li, Y. Zhao, X. Sun, and J. Grundy, “Androzooopen: Collecting large-scale open source android apps for the research community,” in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, 2020, pp. 548–552.
[58]
P. Liu, W. Yuan, J. Fu, Z. Jiang, H. Hayashi, and G. Neubig, “Pre-train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 1–35, 2023.
[59]
Y. Liu, T. Le-Cong, R. Widyasari, C. Tantithamthavorn, L. Li, X.-B. D. Le, and D. Lo, “Refining chatgpt-generated code: Characterizing and mitigating code quality issues,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2023.
[60]
Y. Liu, C. Tantithamthavorn, L. Li, and Y. Liu, “Deep learning for android malware defenses: a systematic literature review,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 1–36, 2022.
[61]
——, “Explainable ai for android malware detection: Towards understanding why the models perform so well?” in 2022 IEEE 33rd International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE). IEEE, 2022, pp. 169–180.
[62]
Y. Liu, C. Tantithamthavorn, Y. Liu, and L. Li, “On the reliability and explainability of language models for program generation,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2024.
[63]
Z. Liu, K. Liu, X. Xia, and X. Yang, “Towards more realistic evaluation for neural test oracle generation,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, 2023, pp. 589–600.
[64]
S. Lu, D. Guo, S. Ren, J. Huang, A. Svyatkovskiy, A. Blanco, C. Clement, D. Drain, D. Jiang, D. Tang et al., “Codexglue: A machine learning benchmark dataset for code understanding and generation,” in Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 1).
[65]
S. Minaee, N. Kalchbrenner, E. Cambria, N. Nikzad, M. Chenaghlu, and J. Gao, “Deep learning–based text classification: a comprehensive review,” ACM computing surveys (CSUR), vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 1–40, 2021.
[66]
C. Niu, C. Li, V. Ng, D. Chen, J. Ge, and B. Luo, “An empirical comparison of pre-trained models of source code,” in 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 2023, pp. 2136–2148.
[67]
K. Papineni, S. Roukos, T. Ward, and W.-J. Zhu, “Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation,” in Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2002, pp. 311–318.
[68]
F. Pendlebury, F. Pierazzi, R. Jordaney, J. Kinder, and L. Cavallaro, “\(\{\)TESSERACT\(\}\): Eliminating experimental bias in malware classification across space and time,” in 28th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 19), 2019, pp. 729–746.
[69]
C. Pornprasit and C. Tantithamthavorn, “Gpt-3.5 for code review automation: How do few-shot learning, prompt design, and model fine-tuning impact their performance?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00905, 2024.
[70]
C. Pornprasit, C. Tantithamthavorn, P. Thongtanunam, and C. Chen, “D-act: Towards diff-aware code transformation for code review under a time-wise evaluation,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). IEEE, 2023, pp. 296–307.
[71]
C. Pornprasit and C. K. Tantithamthavorn, “Jitline: A simpler, better, faster, finer-grained just-in-time defect prediction,” in 2021 IEEE/ACM 18th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). IEEE, 2021, pp. 369–379.
[72]
——, “Deeplinedp: Towards a deep learning approach for line-level defect prediction,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 84–98, 2022.
[73]
C. Raffel, N. Shazeer, A. Roberts, K. Lee, S. Narang, M. Matena, Y. Zhou, W. Li, and P. J. Liu, “Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 5485–5551, 2020.
[74]
S. Ren, D. Guo, S. Lu, L. Zhou, S. Liu, D. Tang, N. Sundaresan, M. Zhou, A. Blanco, and S. Ma, “Codebleu: a method for automatic evaluation of code synthesis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.10297, 2020.
[75]
P. C. Rigby and C. Bird, “Convergent contemporary software peer review practices,” in Proceedings of the 2013 9th joint meeting on foundations of software engineering, 2013, pp. 202–212.
[76]
X. She, Y. Liu, Y. Zhao, Y. He, L. Li, C. Tantithamthavorn, Z. Qin, and H. Wang, “Pitfalls in language models for code intelligence: A taxonomy and survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17903, 2023.
[77]
E. Shi, Y. Wang, L. Du, J. Chen, S. Han, H. Zhang, D. Zhang, and H. Sun, “On the evaluation of neural code summarization,” in Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2022, pp. 1597–1608.
[78]
L. Shi, F. Mu, X. Chen, S. Wang, J. Wang, Y. Yang, G. Li, X. Xia, and Q. Wang, “Are we building on the rock? on the importance of data preprocessing for code summarization,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, 2022, pp. 107–119.
[79]
C. Tantithamthavorn and A. E. Hassan, “An experience report on defect modelling in practice: Pitfalls and challenges,” in Proceedings of the 40th International conference on software engineering: Software engineering in practice, 2018, pp. 286–295.
[80]
C. Tantithamthavorn, A. E. Hassan, and K. Matsumoto, “The impact of class rebalancing techniques on the performance and interpretation of defect prediction models,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 1200–1219, 2018.
[81]
C. Tantithamthavorn, S. McIntosh, A. E. Hassan, A. Ihara, and K. Matsumoto, “The impact of mislabelling on the performance and interpretation of defect prediction models,” in 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, vol. 1. IEEE, 2015, pp. 812–823.
[82]
C. Tantithamthavorn, S. McIntosh, A. E. Hassan, and K. Matsumoto, “Automated parameter optimization of classification techniques for defect prediction models,” in Proceedings of the 38th international conference on software engineering, 2016, pp. 321–332.
[83]
——, “An empirical comparison of model validation techniques for defect prediction models,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2016.
[84]
P. Thongtanunam, C. Pornprasit, and C. Tantithamthavorn, “Autotransform: Automated code transformation to support modern code review process,” in Proceedings of the 44th international conference on software engineering, 2022, pp. 237–248.
[85]
R. Tufan, L. Pascarella, M. Tufanoy, D. Poshyvanykz, and G. Bavota, “Towards automating code review activities,” in 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 2021, pp. 163–174.
[86]
M. Tufano, J. Pantiuchina, C. Watson, G. Bavota, and D. Poshyvanyk, “On learning meaningful code changes via neural machine translation,” in 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 2019, pp. 25–36.
[87]
M. Tufano, C. Watson, G. Bavota, M. Di Penta, M. White, and D. Poshyvanyk, “An empirical investigation into learning bug-fixing patches in the wild via neural machine translation,” in Proceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2018, pp. 832–837.
[88]
R. Tufano, S. Masiero, A. Mastropaolo, L. Pascarella, D. Poshyvanyk, and G. Bavota, “Using pre-trained models to boost code review automation,” in Proceedings of the 44th international conference on software engineering, 2022, pp. 2291–2302.
[89]
A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017.
[90]
D. Wang, Z. Jia, S. Li, Y. Yu, Y. Xiong, W. Dong, and X. Liao, “Bridging pre-trained models and downstream tasks for source code understanding,” in Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2022, pp. 287–298.
[91]
Y. Wang, H. Le, A. Gotmare, N. Bui, J. Li, and S. Hoi, “Codet5+: Open code large language models for code understanding and generation,” in Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2023, pp. 1069–1088.
[92]
Y. Wang, W. Wang, S. Joty, and S. C. Hoi, “Codet5: Identifier-aware unified pre-trained encoder-decoder models for code understanding and generation,” in Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2021, pp. 8696–8708.
[93]
C. Watson, M. Tufano, K. Moran, G. Bavota, and D. Poshyvanyk, “On learning meaningful assert statements for unit test cases,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering, 2020, pp. 1398–1409.
[94]
S. Wattanakriengkrai, P. Thongtanunam, C. Tantithamthavorn, H. Hata, and K. Matsumoto, “Predicting defective lines using a model-agnostic technique,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 1480–1496, 2020.
[95]
T. Wolf, L. Debut, V. Sanh, J. Chaumond, C. Delangue, A. Moi, P. Cistac, T. Rault, R. Louf, M. Funtowicz et al., “Huggingface’s transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771, 2019.
[96]
H. Xia, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhou, X. Chen, Y. Wang, X. Zhang, S. Cui, G. Hong, X. Zhang, M. Yang et al., “How android developers handle evolution-induced api compatibility issues: a large-scale study,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering, 2020, pp. 886–898.
[97]
Y. Yang, X. Xia, D. Lo, and J. Grundy, “A survey on deep learning for software engineering,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 54, no. 10s, p. 206, 2022.
[98]
S. Yatish, J. Jiarpakdee, P. Thongtanunam, and C. Tantithamthavorn, “Mining software defects: Should we consider affected releases?” in 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 2019, pp. 654–665.
[99]
Z. Yuan, Y. Lu, and Y. Xue, “Droiddetector: android malware characterization and detection using deep learning,” Tsinghua Science and Technology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 114–123, 2016.
[100]
Z. Zeng, H. Tan, H. Zhang, J. Li, Y. Zhang, and L. Zhang, “An extensive study on pre-trained models for program understanding and generation,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, 2022, pp. 39–51.
[101]
X. Zhang, Y. Zhang, M. Zhong, D. Ding, Y. Cao, Y. Zhang, M. Zhang, and M. Yang, “Enhancing state-of-the-art classifiers with api semantics to detect evolved android malware,” in Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, 2020, pp. 757–770.
[102]
Y. Zhao, L. Li, K. Liu, and J. Grundy, “Towards automatically repairing compatibility issues in published android apps,” in Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2022, pp. 2142–2153.
Index Terms
- Automatically Recommend Code Updates: Are We There Yet?
Recommendations
Are Your Dependencies Code Reviewed?: Measuring Code Review Coverage in Dependency Updates
As modern software extensively uses free open source packages as dependencies, developers have to regularly pull in new third-party code through frequent updates. However, without a proper review of every incoming change, vulnerable and malicious code can ...
Efficient updates in dynamic XML data: from binary string to quaternary string
XML query processing based on labeling schemes has been thoroughly studied in the past several years. Recently efficient processing of updates in dynamic XML data has gained more attention. However, all the existing techniques have high update cost, ...
Dynamic software updates: a VM-centric approach
PLDI '09Software evolves to fix bugs and add features. Stopping and restarting programs to apply changes is inconvenient and often costly. Dynamic software updating (DSU) addresses this problem by updating programs while they execute, but existing DSU systems ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
EISSN:1557-7392
Table of ContentsCopyright © 2024 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Online AM: 16 July 2024
Accepted: 03 July 2024
Revised: 29 June 2024
Received: 23 August 2022
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 171Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)171
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)45
Reflects downloads up to 14 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in