MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974201381 · doi:10.1145/1463788.1463817

SIFT

2008· article· en· W1974201381 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)Western University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTRACE (psycholinguistics)Scale-invariant feature transformSoftwareSoftware developmentScalabilitySet (abstract data type)Software systemProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceOperating systemFeature extraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparing program execution traces can be useful for numerous purposes, such as software testing, system security analysis, program comprehension, software evolution and other areas of software development. Unfortunately, trace comparison techniques that operate on execution traces containing full execution details are too slow for use in large-scale production system environments. In order to speed up the comparisons, we propose a technique (called SIFT) for "filtering-out" irrelevant traces from a given set so that only the relevant few, residual, traces are then used for comparison. Our solution involves multiple levels of trace compression, each with a different degree of abstraction. These traces are compared iteratively while filtering out dissimilar traces. This paper describes the compression and comparison algorithms. Prototype results from a significant case study show that the SIFT approach is efficient and scalable for use in an industrial software development environment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.200 · 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