MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028950884 · doi:10.5555/1071565.1071569

A quantitative analysis of Java bytecode sequences

2004· article· en· W2028950884 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Stephenson, Wade Holst

Bibliographic record

VenuePrinciples and Practice of Programming in Java · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBytecodeComputer scienceJava bytecodeProgramming languageJust-in-time compilationJavaOptimizing compilerCompilerSet (abstract data type)InterpreterTheoretical computer scienceParallel computingJava appletJava annotation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A variety of studies have been performed which analyse the bytecodes executed by a Java Virtual Machine (JVM). The simplest of these studies perform a static analysis of the bytecodes in the classes that make up the program [1]. Other studies have examined the dynamic behaviour of the program, only considering those individual bytecodes that are actually executed [2, 3]. Dynamic studies have also been extended to determine which bytecode pairs are commonly executed [4]. This work builds on these previous studies by extending the dynamic analysis from bigrams (bytecode pairs) to multicodes (variable length sequences) up to 20 bytecodes in length. The algorithms used to determine the multicodes are presented in addition to the most commonly occurring multicodes for a selection of benchmarks. Determining these multicodes is relevant to research into instruction set design. It is also directly applicable to interpreter optimization techniques such as super operators [5] and just-in-time compiler optimization techniques including bytecode idioms [6].

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrinciples and Practice of Programming in JavaSame topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207