Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2503.04076

Unmasking the Genuine Type Inference Capabilities of LLMs for Java Code Snippets

Abstract

Type inference is crucial for reusing online code snippets. Although snippets are prevalently shared on platforms like StackOverflow, they often lack essential type information, such as fully qualified names (FQNs). Recent studies have leveraged Large Language Models (LLMs) to perform type inference for such code snippets, showing promising results. However, these results may suffer from data leakage, as the benchmark, StatType-SO, used for evaluation has been publicly available on GitHub since 2017. Consequently, it remains uncertain whether the strong performance of LLMs reflects genuine semantic understanding of code or is due to the ground truth being included in the training set. This paper strives to comprehensively evaluate the genuine type inference capabilities of LLMs on Java code snippets and identify potential limitations of LLMs. First, we created ThaliaType, a new, previously unreleased benchmark suite designed for type inference evaluation. Second, using the StarCoder2 LLM as baseline, we uncovered data leakage from StatType-SO in StarCoder2's open-source training set and observed that other state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit similar performance drops when evaluated on ThaliaType, with precision decreasing by up to 59% and recall by up to 72%. Finally, we designed semantic-preserving code transformations to test the capabilities of LLMs in understanding the execution semantics of snippets. Results showed that LLMs' performance on StatType-SO is far less robust to these transformations than on ThaliaType, suggesting that the performance on StatType-SO may be biased by data leakage and have limited generalizability. These findings highlight the importance of carefully designed, leakage-free benchmarks for evaluating LLMs on type inference tasks. We recommend future studies adopt ThaliaType for rigorous and reliable assessments of LLMs' genuine type inference capabilities.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yiwen Dong, Zhenyang Xu, Yongqiang Tian, Chengnian Sun. 2025-10-02. Unmasking the Genuine Type Inference Capabilities of LLMs for Java Code Snippets. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04076

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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