MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107368437 · doi:10.1145/3428276

ιDOT: a DOT calculus with object initialization

2020· article· en· W3107368437 on OpenAlexafffund
Ifaz Kabir, Yu-Feng Li, Ondřej Lhoták

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInitializationSoundnessComputer scienceScalaObject (grammar)Theoretical computer scienceProgramming languageAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Dependent Object Types (DOT) calculus serves as a foundation of the Scala programming language, with a machine-verified soundness proof. However, Scala's type system has been shown to be unsound due to null references, which are used as default values of fields of objects before they have been initialized. This paper proposes ιDOT, an extension of DOT for ensuring safe initialization of objects. DOT was previously extended to κDOT with the addition of mutable fields and constructors. To κDOT, ιDOT adds an initialization effect system that statically prevents the possibility of reading a null reference from an uninitialized object. To design ιDOT, we have reformulated the Freedom Before Commitment object initialization scheme in terms of disjoint subheaps to make it easier to formalize in an effect system and prove sound. Soundness of ιDOT depends on the interplay of three systems of rules: a type system close to that of DOT, an effect system to ensure definite assignment of fields in each constructor, and an initialization system that tracks the initialization status of objects in a stack of subheaps. We have proven the overall system sound and verified the soundness proof using the Coq proof assistant.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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