Summarizing the Content of Large Traces to Facilitate the Understanding of the Behaviour of a Software System
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
In this paper, we present a semi-automatic approach for summarizing the content of large execution traces. Similar to text summarization, where abstracts can be extracted from large documents, the aim of trace summarization is to take an execution trace as input and return a summary of its main content as output. The resulting summary can then be converted into a UML sequence diagram and used by software engineers to understand the main behavioural aspects of the system. Our approach to trace summarization is based on the removal of implementation details such as utilities from execution traces. To achieve our goal, we have developed a metric based on fan-in and fan-out to rank the system components according to whether they implement key system concepts or they are mere implementation details. We applied our approach to a trace generated from an object-oriented system called Weka that initially contains 97413 method calls. We succeeded to extract a summary from this trace that contains 453 calls. According to the developers of the Weka system, the resulting summary is an adequate high-level representation of the main interactions of the traced scenario
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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