Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple modern programming languages, including Kotlin, Scala, Swift, and C#, have type systems where nullability is explicitly specified in the types. All of the above also need to interoperate with languages where types remain implicitly nullable, like Java. This leads to runtime errors that can manifest in subtle ways. In this paper, we show how to reason about the presence and provenance of such nullability errors using the concept of blame from gradual typing. Specifically, we introduce a calculus, λ_null, where some terms are typed as implicitly nullable and others as explicitly nullable. Just like in the original blame calculus of Wadler and Findler, interactions between both kinds of terms are mediated by casts with attached blame labels, which indicate the origin of errors. On top of λ_null, we then create a second calculus, λ_null^s, which closely models the interoperability between languages with implicit nullability and languages with explicit nullability, such as Java and Scala. Our main result is a theorem that states that nullability errors in λ_null^s can always be blamed on terms with less-precise typing; that is, terms typed as implicitly nullable. By analogy, this would mean that NullPointerExceptions in combined Java/Scala programs are always the result of unsoundness in the Java type system. We summarize our result with the slogan explicitly nullable programs can't be blamed. All our results are formalized in 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".