Bibliographic record
Abstract
Object-oriented programming languages typically allow mutation of objects, but pure methods are common too. There is great interest in recognizing which methods are pure, because it eases analysis of program behavior and allows modifying the program without changing its behavior. The roDOT calculus is a formal calculus extending DOT with reference mutability. In this paper, we explore purity conditions in roDOT and pose a SEF guarantee, by which the type system guarantees that methods of certain types are side-effect free. We use the idea from ReIm to detect pure methods by argument types. Applying this idea to roDOT required just a few changes to the type system, but necessitated re-working a significant part of the soundness proof. In addition, we state a transformation guarantee, which states that in a roDOT program, calls to SEF methods can be safely reordered without changing the outcome of the program. We proved type soundness of the updated roDOT calculus, using multiple layers of typing judgments. We proved the SEF guarantee by applying the Immutability guarantee, and the transformation guarantee by applying the SEF guarantee within a framework for reasoning about safe transformations of roDOT programs. All proofs are mechanized in Coq.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
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".