Papers › Generative Type Inference for Python

Generative Type Inference for Python

18 Jul 2023arXiv:2307.09163links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Yun Peng, Chaozheng Wang, Wenxuan Wang, Cuiyun Gao, Michael R. Lyu

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Python is a popular dynamic programming language, evidenced by its ranking as the second most commonly used language on GitHub. However, its dynamic type system can lead to potential type errors, leading researchers to explore automatic type inference approaches for Python programs. The rule-based type inference approaches can ensure the accuracy of predicted variable types, but they suffer from low coverage problems. Supervised type inference approaches, while feature-agnostic, require large, high-quality annotated datasets and are limited to pre-defined types. As zero-shot approaches, the cloze-style approaches reformulate the type inference problem into a fill-in-the-blank problem. However, their performance is limited. This paper introduces TypeGen, a few-shot generative type inference approach that incorporates static domain knowledge from static analysis. TypeGen creates chain-of-thought (COT) prompts by translating the type inference steps of static analysis into prompts based on the type dependency graphs (TDGs), enabling language models to learn from how static analysis infers types. By combining COT prompts with code slices and type hints, TypeGen constructs example prompts from human annotations. TypeGen only requires very few annotated examples to teach language models to generate similar COT prompts via in-context learning. Moreover, TypeGen enhances the interpretability of results through the use of the input-explanation-output strategy. Experiments show that TypeGen outperforms the best baseline Type4Py by 10.0% for argument type prediction and 22.5% in return value type prediction in terms of top-1 Exact Match by using only five examples. Furthermore, TypeGen achieves substantial improvements of 27% to 84% compared to the zero-shot performance of large language models with parameter sizes ranging from 1.3B to 175B in terms of top-1 Exact Match.

PaperPDFCodeCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2307.09163")

Code

Syntology Ran 2 of 2 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran · our draft was wrong.

By repository: official repository: 2 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

johnnypeng18/typegen officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

2 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

2ran · our draft was wrong

Licence: 0 of the 2 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from johnnypeng18/typegen. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

construct_cot_prompt johnnypeng18/typegen/typegen/typegen.py official repository ran · our draft was wrong Apache-2.0 (permissive) · e445908b676b2491 · report
construct_regular_prompt johnnypeng18/typegen/typegen/typegen.py official repository ran · our draft was wrong Apache-2.0 (permissive) · f1dce421a4551123 · report

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections