MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012500378 · doi:10.1145/2666620.2666626

LazyTainter

2014· article· en· W2012500378 on OpenAlexafffund
Zheng Wei, David Lie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceHeap (data structure)Overhead (engineering)Private information retrievalMobile deviceEmbedded systemTaint checkingAndroid (operating system)Tracking (education)Operating systemComputer securitySoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The leakage of private information is of great concern on mobile devices since they contain a great deal of sensitive information. This has spurred interest in the use of taint tracking systems to track and monitor the flow of private information on a mobile device. Taint tracking systems impose memory overhead, as taint information must be maintained for every piece of information an application stores in memory. This memory cost is at odds with the growing number of low-end, memory-constrained devices, which makes up the majority mobile device growth in emerging markets. To make taint tracking affordable and to benefit a broader range of mobile devices, we present LazyTainter, which is a memory-efficient taint tracking system designed for managed runtimes. To implement LazyTainter, we enhanced TaintDroid with hybrid taint tracking, which combines lazy and eager tainting, to reduce memory usage with only negligible performance loss. Our experimental results demonstrate that LazyTainter can reduce heap usage by as much as 26.5% when compared to TaintDroid while imposing a negligible 1% increase in performance overhead.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: Software
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.016

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207