MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010821527 · doi:10.1145/3428243

A type-and-effect system for object initialization

2020· article· en· W3010821527 on OpenAlexafffund
Fengyun Liu, Ondřej Lhoták, Aggelos Biboudis, Paolo G. Giarrusso, Martin Odersky

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsInitializationComputer scienceCorrectnessProgramming languageJavaScalaObject (grammar)Theoretical computer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every newly created object goes through several initialization states: starting from a state where all fields are uninitialized until all of them are assigned. Any operation on the object during its initialization process, which usually happens in the constructor via this , has to observe the initialization states of the object for correctness, i.e. only initialized fields may be used. Checking safe usage of this statically, without manual annotation of initialization states in the source code, is a challenge, due to aliasing and virtual method calls on this . Mainstream languages either do not check initialization errors, such as Java, C++, Scala, or they defend against them by not supporting useful initialization patterns, such as Swift. In parallel, past research has shown that safe initialization can be achieved for varying degrees of expressiveness but by sacrificing syntactic simplicity. We approach the problem by upholding local reasoning about initialization which avoids whole-program analysis, and we achieve typestate polymorphism via subtyping. On this basis, we put forward a novel type-and-effect system that can effectively ensure initialization safety while allowing flexible initialization patterns. We implement an initialization checker in the Scala 3 compiler and evaluate on several real-world projects.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.008

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Programming LanguagesSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207