miniF2F VS jaxtyping

That said, you *can* write down a desired type and have a system write down a ton of type annotations or generate a bunch of code to prove that the type you wrote down is satisfied by your program. There's been recent work on this in deep learning for theorem proving, such as this work which uses GPT for proving theorems in Lean, a dependently type programming language and theorem prover. A better approach though would be to combine this with an actual tree search algorithm to allow a more structured search over the space of proofs, instead of trying to generate full correct proofs in one shot. Hypertree Proof Search does this, using a variant of AlphaZero to search and fine-tune the neural net. Unfortunately it hasn't been open-sourced though, and it's pretty compute intensive, so we can't use this for actual type inference yet. But yeah there's active interest in doing this kind of thing, both as a proving ground for using RL for reasoning tasks and from mathematicians for theorem-proving.

Try using [jaxtyping](https://github.com/google/jaxtyping).

It also supports numpy/pytorch/etc.

Since you mention ML use-cases, you might like jaxtyping.

jaxtyping: rich shape & dtype annotations for arrays and tensors (also supports PyTorch/TensorFlow/NumPy);

Heads-up that my newer jaxtyping project now exists.

As other folks have commented, type hints are now a big deal. For static typing the best checker is pyright. For runtime checking there is typeguard and beartype. These can be integrated with array libraries through jaxtyping. (Which also works for PyTorch/numpy/etc., despite the name.)