Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

A Systematic Evaluation of Large Code Models in API Suggestion: When, Which, and How

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.13178 v1 pith:5U5WPK7Z submitted 2024-09-20 cs.SE

A Systematic Evaluation of Large Code Models in API Suggestion: When, Which, and How

classification cs.SE
keywords apissuggestionevaluationlcmstaskaimscodescenarios
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

API suggestion is a critical task in modern software development, assisting programmers by predicting and recommending third-party APIs based on the current context. Recent advancements in large code models (LCMs) have shown promise in the API suggestion task. However, they mainly focus on suggesting which APIs to use, ignoring that programmers may demand more assistance while using APIs in practice including when to use the suggested APIs and how to use the APIs. To mitigate the gap, we conduct a systematic evaluation of LCMs for the API suggestion task in the paper. To facilitate our investigation, we first build a benchmark that contains a diverse collection of code snippets, covering 176 APIs used in 853 popular Java projects. Three distinct scenarios in the API suggestion task are then considered for evaluation, including (1) ``\textit{when to use}'', which aims at determining the desired position and timing for API usage; (2) ``\textit{which to use}'', which aims at identifying the appropriate API from a given library; and (3) ``\textit{how to use}'', which aims at predicting the arguments for a given API. The consideration of the three scenarios allows for a comprehensive assessment of LCMs' capabilities in suggesting APIs for developers. During the evaluation, we choose nine popular LCMs with varying model sizes for the three scenarios. We also perform an in-depth analysis of the influence of context selection on the model performance ...

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Library Hallucinations in LLM-Generated Code: A Risk Analysis Grounded in Developer Queries

    cs.SE 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A study of seven LLMs finds that realistic prompt variations such as one-character misspellings trigger library hallucinations in up to 26% of cases, fabricated names in up to 99%, and time-based prompts in up to 85%,...

  2. A Study of LLMs' Preferences for Libraries and Programming Languages

    cs.SE 2025-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Empirical study of eight LLMs finds overuse of popular libraries like NumPy in up to 45% of unnecessary cases and strong default preference for Python even when suboptimal.