Abstract Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for their potential in software engineering, particularly in static analysis tasks. In this study, we investigate the potential of current LLMs to enhance call-graph analysis and type inference for Python and JavaScript programs. We empirically evaluated 24 LLMs, including OpenAI’s GPT series and open-source models like LLaMA and Mistral, using existing and newly developed benchmarks. Specifically, we enhanced TypeEvalPy, a micro-benchmarking framework for type inference in Python, with auto-generation capabilities, expanding its scope from 860 to 77,268 type annotations for Python. Additionally, we introduce SWARM-CG and SWARM-JS, comprehensive benchmarking suites for evaluating call-graph construction tools across multiple programming languages. Our findings reveal a contrasting performance of LLMs in static analysis tasks. For call-graph generation, traditional static analysis tools such as PyCG for Python and Jelly for JavaScript consistently outperform LLMs. While advanced models like mistral-large-it-2407-123b and gpt-4o show promise, they still struggle with completeness and soundness in call-graph analysis across both languages. In contrast, LLMs demonstrate a clear advantage in type inference for Python, surpassing traditional tools like HeaderGen and hybrid approaches such as HiTyper. These results suggest that, while LLMs hold promise in type inference, their limitations in call-graph analysis highlight the need for further research. Our study provides a foundation for integrating LLMs into static analysis workflows, offering insights into their strengths and current limitations.

Abstract Jupyter notebooks have emerged as the predominant tool for data scientists to develop and share machine learning solutions, primarily using Python as the programming language. Despite their widespread adoption, a significant fraction of these notebooks, when shared on public repositories, suffer from insufficient documentation and a lack of coherent narrative. Such shortcomings compromise the readability and understandability of the notebook. Addressing this shortcoming, this paper introduces HeaderGen, a tool-based approach that automatically augments code cells in these notebooks with descriptive markdown headers, derived from a predefined taxonomy of machine learning operations. Additionally, it systematically classifies and displays function calls in line with this taxonomy. The mechanism that powers HeaderGen is an enhanced call graph analysis technique, building upon the foundational analysis available in PyCG. To improve precision, HeaderGen extends PyCG’s analysis with return-type resolution of external function calls, type inference, and flow-sensitivity. Furthermore, leveraging type information, HeaderGen employs pattern matching techniques on the code syntax to annotate code cells. We conducted an empirical evaluation on 15 real-world Jupyter notebooks sourced from Kaggle. The results indicate a high accuracy in call graph analysis, with precision at 95.6% and recall at 95.3%. The header generation has a precision of 85.7% and a recall rate of 92.8% with regard to headers created manually by experts. A user study corroborated the practical utility of HeaderGen, revealing that users found HeaderGen useful in tasks related to comprehension and navigation. To further evaluate the type inference capability of static analysis tools, we introduce TypeEvalPy, a framework for evaluating type inference tools for Python with an in-built micro-benchmark containing 154 code snippets and 845 type annotations in the ground truth. Our comparative analysis on four tools revealed that HeaderGen outperforms other tools in exact matches with the ground truth.