A Hardware-Assisted Tool for Fast, Full Code Coverage Analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software reliability can be improved by using code coverage analysis to ensure that all statements are executed at least once during the testing process. When full code coverage information is obtained through software code instrumentation, high runtime performance overheads are incurred. Techniques that perform deferred or selective code instrumentation have shown success in reducing run-time overheads; however, the execution profile remains distorted. Techniques have been proposed that use internal processor hardware during the data gathering process, e.g. program counter logging. These approaches have been shown to reduce overheads; but currently trade swift execution for sparse code coverage. By combining the branch-vector hardware designed for debugging modern embedded processors with on-demand code coverage analysis, we have developed a new tool which provides full code coverage, while minimizing performance distortions. Experimental results show a performance impact of only 8 - 12%, while still providing 100% code coverage information.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it