MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1831986252

Proof linking: distributed verification of java classfiles in the presence of multiple classloaders

2001· article· en· W1831986252 on OpenAlexaff
Philip Fong, Robert D. Cameron

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity and Verification in Computing
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBytecodeJavaProgramming languageRuntime verificationSoftware verificationFunctional verificationJava bytecodeFormal verificationInteroperabilityJava appletOperating systemJava annotationSoftwareSoftware development
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The standard JVM invokes a complex, resource-consuming, bytecode verifier to ensure the type-safety of untrusted code. Such protection mechanism is unpractical for VM's deployed on small devices or built for high-performance applications. This motivates the need for distributed verification systems, in which a mobile code runtime environment shares some or all of its verification burden with certain remotely located parties in order to establish the trust of a mobile program. This paper advocates the adoption of a previously-proposed mobile code verification architecture, Proof Linking, as a standard intrastructure for performing distributed verification in the JVM. Proof Linking not only supports both CLDC-style and signature-based distributed verification protocols, but it also provides interoperability between the two. We also extend our previous work to account for the presence of multiple classloaders, thereby allowing Proof Linking to be adopted not only by CLDC-compliant devices,...

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSecurity and Verification in ComputingFrench-language works237,207