Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Bowei Gao
dblp:292/4413
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Programming languages and type systems · 67% Program analysis · 33% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Deep learning architectures and training · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program analysis
static analysis |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Static Inference Meets Deep learning: A Hybrid Type Inference Approach for Python · ICSE 2022 |
Programming languages and type systems › type inference
static type inference |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Static Inference Meets Deep learning: A Hybrid Type Inference Approach for Python · ICSE 2022 |
Programming languages and type systems
type inference |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Static Inference Meets Deep learning: A Hybrid Type Inference Approach for Python · ICSE 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
static inference · 1.1deep learning · 1.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Static Inference Meets Deep learning: A Hybrid Type Inference Approach for PythonabstractType inference for dynamic programming languages such as Python is an important yet challenging task. Static type inference techniques can precisely infer variables with enough static constraints but are unable to handle variables with dynamic features. Deep learning (DL) based approaches are feature-agnostic, but they cannot guarantee the correctness of the predicted types. Their performance significantly depends on the quality of the training data (i.e., DL models perform poorly on some common types that rarely appear in the training dataset). It is interesting to note that the static and DL-based approaches offer complementary benefits. Unfortunately, to our knowledge, precise type inference based on both static inference and neural predictions has not been exploited and remains an open challenge. In particular, it is hard to integrate DL models into the framework of rule-based static approaches. Yun Peng 0003, Cuiyun Gao 0001, Zongjie Li, Bowei Gao, David Lo 0001, Qirun Zhang, Michael R. Lyu |
ICSE | 4 |