Software bertillonage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deployed software systems are typically composed of many pieces, not all of which may have been created by the main development team. Often, the provenance of included components -- such as external libraries or cloned source code -- is not clearly stated, and this uncertainty can introduce technical and ethical concerns that make it difficult for system owners and other stakeholders to manage their software assets. In this work, we motivate the need for the recovery of the provenance of software entities by a broad set of techniques that could include signature matching, source code fact extraction, software clone detection, call flow graph matching, string matching, historical analyses, and other techniques. We liken our provenance goals to that of Bertillonage, a simple and approximate forensic analysis technique based on bio-metrics that was developed in 19th century France before the advent of fingerprints. As an example, we have developed a fast, simple, and approximate technique called anchored signature matching for identifying library version information within a given Java application. This technique involves a type of structured signature matching performed against a database of candidates drawn from the Maven2 repository, a 150GB collection of open source Java libraries. An exploratory case study using a proprietary e-commerce Java application illustrates that the approach is both feasible and effective.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".