MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Flexible Data-Driven Approach for Execution Trace Filtering

2015· article· en· W1493361109 on OpenAlexafffund
Kadjo Kouame, Naser Ezzati‐Jivan, Michel Dagenais

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceTRACE (psycholinguistics)XMLKernel (algebra)AbstractionEvent (particle physics)ExecutableSimple (philosophy)Range (aeronautics)Data miningProgramming languageOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Execution traces are frequently used to study system run-time behavior and to detect problems. However, the huge amount of data in an execution trace may complexify its analysis. Moreover, users are not usually interested in all events of a trace, hence the need for a proper filtering approach. Filtering is used to generate an enhanced trace, with a reduced size and complexity, that is easier to analyse. The approach described in this paper allows to define custom filtering patterns, declaratively in XML, to concentrate the analysis on the most important and interesting events. The filtering scenarios include syntaxes to describe various analysis patterns using finite state machines. The patterns range from very simple event filtering to complex multi-level event abstraction, covering various types of synthetic behaviours that can be captured from execution trace data. The paper provides the details on this data-driven filtering approach and some interesting use cases for the trace events generated by the LTTng Linux kernel tracer.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.133
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware System Performance and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207