MoMS: Multi-objective miniaturization of software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smart phones, gaming consoles, and wireless routers are ubiquitous; the increasing diffusion of such devices with limited resources, together with society's unsatiated appetite for new applications, pushes companies to miniaturize their programs. Miniaturizing a program for a hand-held device is a time-consuming task often requiring complex decisions. Companies must accommodate conflicting constraints: customers' satisfaction with features may be in conflict with a device's limited storage, memory, or battery life. This paper proposes a process, MoMS, for the multi-objective miniaturization of software to help developers miniaturize programs while satisfying multiple conflicting constraints. It can be used to support the reverse engineering, next release problem, and porting of both software and product lines. The process directs the elicitation of customer pre-requirements, their mapping to program features, and the selection of the features to port. We present two case studies based on Pooka, an email client, and SIP Communicator, an instant messenger, to demonstrate that MoMS supports optimized miniaturization and helps reduce effort by 77%, on average, over a manual approach.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".