Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2411.15368

The Power of Types: Exploring the Impact of Type Checking on Neural Bug Detection in Dynamically Typed Languages

Boqi Chen·José Antonio Hernández López·Gunter Mussbacher·Dániel Varró
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Motivation: Automated bug detection in dynamically typed languages such as Python is essential for maintaining code quality. The lack of mandatory type annotations in such languages can lead to errors that are challenging to identify early with traditional static analysis tools. Recent progress in deep neural networks has led to increased use of neural bug detectors. In statically typed languages, a type checker is integrated into the compiler and thus taken into consideration when the neural bug detector is designed for these languages. Problem: However, prior studies overlook this aspect during the training and testing of neural bug detectors for dynamically typed languages. When an optional type checker is used, assessing existing neural bug detectors on bugs easily detectable by type checkers may impact their performance estimation. Moreover, including these bugs in the training set of neural bug detectors can shift their detection focus toward the wrong type of bugs. Contribution: We explore the impact of type checking on various neural bug detectors for variable misuse bugs, a common type targeted by neural bug detectors. Existing synthetic and real-world datasets are type-checked to evaluate the prevalence of type-related bugs. Then, we investigate how type-related bugs influence the training and testing of the neural bug detectors. Findings: Our findings indicate that existing bug detection datasets contain a significant proportion of type-related bugs. Building on this insight, we discover integrating the neural bug detector with a type checker can be beneficial, especially when the code is annotated with types. Further investigation reveals neural bug detectors perform better on type-related bugs than other bugs. Moreover, removing type-related bugs from the training data helps improve neural bug detectors' ability to identify bugs beyond the scope of type checkers.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.LGcs.PL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Boqi Chen, José Antonio Hernández López, Gunter Mussbacher, Dániel Varró. 2025-01-16. The Power of Types: Exploring the Impact of Type Checking on Neural Bug Detection in Dynamically Typed Languages. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15368

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗