Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

LLMs Meet Library Evolution: Evaluating Deprecated API Usage in LLM-based Code Completion

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 2406.09834 v3 pith:5VY6LYW6 submitted 2024-06-14 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords codecompletionusagedeprecatedllm-basedllmsevolutionlibrary
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs), pre-trained or fine-tuned on large code corpora, have shown effectiveness in generating code completions. However, in LLM-based code completion, LLMs may struggle to use correct and up-to-date Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) due to the rapid and continuous evolution of libraries. While existing studies have highlighted issues with predicting incorrect APIs, the specific problem of deprecated API usage in LLM-based code completion has not been thoroughly investigated. To address this gap, we conducted the first evaluation study on deprecated API usage in LLM-based code completion. This study involved seven advanced LLMs, 145 API mappings from eight popular Python libraries, and 28,125 completion prompts. The study results reveal the status quo (i.e., API usage plausibility and deprecated usage rate) of deprecated API and replacing API usage in LLM-based code completion from the perspectives of model, prompt, and library, and indicate the root causes behind. Based on these findings, we propose two lightweight fixing approaches, REPLACEAPI and INSERTPROMPT, which can serve as baseline approaches for future research on mitigating deprecated API usage in LLM-based completion. Additionally, we provide implications for future research on integrating library evolution with LLM-driven software development.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. SWE-NFI: Studying and Benchmarking Coding Agents for Non-Functional Improvements

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    SWE-NFI measures coding agents' non-functional code improvements with 92 deterministic rules and 188 real GitHub tasks, finding agents lag humans most on structural logic-pattern improvements.

  2. Characterizing Readability Issue Patterns and the Role of Prompt Design in LLM-Generated Code

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using a 61-feature readability model, LLM code matches or slightly exceeds human code in readability score, shows distinct issue patterns, and prompt design has limited influence.

  3. Don't Use a Cannon to Kill a Fly: Lightweight Model Editing for LLMs to Correct Deprecated API Recommendations

    cs.SE 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AdaLoRA-L restricts edits to API-specific layers and raises specificity by 33–836% (relative) on a new 3,000+ instance benchmark while staying close to AdaLoRA's effectiveness.

  4. CoQuIR: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Code Quality-Aware Information Retrieval

    cs.SE 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A code retrieval benchmark with quality labels for correctness, efficiency, security, and maintainability shows most retrievers fail to prefer high-quality code, and quality-aware fine-tuning improves this without mea...

  5. On the Future of Software Reuse in the Era of AI Native Software Engineering

    cs.SE 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper frames AI-assisted generative code reuse as a cargo-cult-like practice and lays out a research agenda for its quality, security, licensing, and maintainability challenges.

  6. Rethinking Autonomy: Preventing Failures in AI-Driven Software Engineering

    cs.SE 2025-08 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey-plus-benchmark argues that current code LLMs fail safety thresholds and need stronger governance, but the supporting experiment is incomplete.

Pith tools