MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071313718 · doi:10.1145/1118537.1123068

Non-null references by default in the Java modeling language

2005· article· en· W2071313718 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrice Chalin, Frédéric Rioux

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceProgramming languageNull (SQL)JavaJava Modeling LanguageGenerics in JavaInterface (matter)Java annotationSoftware engineeringReal time JavaOperating systemDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on our experiences and those of our peers, we hypothesized that in Java code, the majority of declarations that are of reference types are meant to be non-null. Unfortunately, the Java Modeling Language (JML), like most interface specification and object-oriented programming languages, assumes that such declarations are possibly-null by default. As a consequence, developers need to write specifications that are more verbose than necessary in order to accurately document their module interfaces. In practice, this results in module interfaces being left incompletely and inaccurately specified. In this paper we present the results of a study that confirms our hypothesis. Hence, we propose an adaptation to JML that preserves its language design goals and that allows developers to specify that declarations of reference types are to be interpreted as non-null by default. We explain how this default is safer and results in less writing on the part of specifiers than null-by-default. The paper also reports on an implementation of the proposal in some of the JML tools.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.017
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering NotesSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207