MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387674221 · doi:10.1145/3622844

Initializing Global Objects: Time and Order

2023· article· en· W4387674221 on OpenAlexafffund
Fengyun Liu, Ondřej Lhoták, David Hua, Enze Xing

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInitializationComputer scienceStatic analysisProgramming languageScalaProgramming paradigmDistributed computingJava

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Object-oriented programming has been bothered by an awkward feature for a long time: static members . Static members not only compromise the conceptual integrity of object-oriented programming, but also give rise to subtle initialization errors, such as reading non-initialized fields and deadlocks. The Scala programming language eliminated static members from the language, replacing them with global objects that present a unified object-oriented programming model. However, the problem of global object initialization remains open, and programmers still suffer from initialization errors. We propose partial ordering and initialization-time irrelevance as two fundamental principles for initializing global objects. Based on these principles, we put forward an effective static analysis to ensure safe initialization of global objects, which eliminates initialization errors at compile time. The analysis also enables static scheduling of global object initialization to avoid runtime overhead. The analysis is modular at the granularity of objects and it avoids whole-program analysis. To make the analysis explainable and tunable, we introduce the concept of regions to make context-sensitivity understandable and customizable by programmers.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.016
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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