Precise inference of expressive units of measurement types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ensuring computations are unit-wise consistent is an important task in software development. Numeric computations are usually performed with primitive types instead of abstract data types, which results in very weak static guarantees about correct usage and conversion of units. This paper presents PUnits, a pluggable type system for expressive units of measurement types and a precise, whole-program inference approach for these types. PUnits can be used in three modes: (1) modularly check the correctness of a program, (2) ensure a possible unit typing exists, and (3) annotate a program with units. Annotation mode allows human inspection and is essential since having a valid typing does not guarantee that the inferred specification expresses design intent. PUnits is the first units type system with this capability. Compared to prior work, PUnits strikes a novel balance between expressiveness, inference complexity, and annotation effort. We implement PUnits for Java and evaluate it by specifying the correct usage of frequently used JDK methods. We analyze 234k lines of code from eight open-source scientific computing projects with PUnits. We compare PUnits against an encapsulation-based units API (the javax.measure package) and discovered unit errors that the API failed to find. PUnits infers 90 scientific units for five of the projects and generates well-specified applications. The experiments show that PUnits is an effective, sound, and scalable alternative to using encapsulation-based units APIs, enabling Java developers to reap the performance benefits of using primitive types instead of abstract data types for unit-wise consistent scientific computations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".