Inferring and applying type changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developers frequently change the type of a program element and update all its references to increase performance, security, or maintainability. Manually performing type changes is tedious, error-prone, and it overwhelms developers. Researchers and tool builders have proposed advanced techniques to assist developers when performing type changes. A major obstacle in using these techniques is that the developer has to manually encode rules for defining the type changes. Handcrafting such rules is difficult and often involves multiple trial-error iterations. Given that open-source repositories contain many examples of type-changes, if we could infer the adaptations, we would eliminate the burden on developers. We introduce TC-Infer, a novel technique that infers rewrite rules that capture the required adaptations from the version histories of open source projects. We then use these rules (expressed in the Comby language) as input to existing type change tools. To evaluate the effectiveness of TC-Infer, we use it to infer 4,931 rules for 605 popular type changes in a corpus of 400K commits. Our results show that TC-Infer deduced rewrite rules for 93% of the most popular type change patterns. Our results also show that the rewrite rules produced by TC-Infer are highly effective at applying type changes (99.2% precision and 93.4% recall). To advance the existing tooling we released IntelliTC, an interactive and configurable refactoring plugin for IntelliJ IDEA to perform type changes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".