MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083104467 · doi:10.1145/1377492.1377494

Relations as an abstraction for BDD-based program analysis

2008· article· en· W2083104467 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

VenueACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProgramming languageBinary decision diagramTheoretical computer scienceLanguage construct

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we present Jedd, a language extension to Java that supports a convenient way of programming with Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs). The Jedd language abstracts BDDs as database-style relations and operations on relations, and provides static type rules to ensure that relational operations are used correctly. The article provides a description of the Jedd language and reports on the design and implementation of the Jedd translator and associated runtime system. Of particular interest is the approach to assigning attributes from the high-level relations to physical domains in the underlying BDDs, which is done by expressing the constraints as a SAT problem and using a modern SAT solver to compute the solution. Further, a runtime system is defined that handles memory management issues and supports a browsable profiling tool for tuning the key BDD operations. The motivation for designing Jedd was to support the development of interrelated whole program analyses based on BDDs. We have successfully used Jedd to build Paddle, a framework of context-sensitive program analyses, including points-to analysis and call graph construction, as well as several client analyses.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.314 · 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