A collaborative demonstration of reverse engineering tools
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
This paper describes a collaborative structured demonstration of reverse engineering tools that was presented at a working session at WCRE 2001 in Stuttgart, Germany. A structured demonstration is a hybrid tool evaluation technique that combines elements from experiments, case studies, technology demonstrations, and benchmarking. The essence of the technique is to facilitate learning about software engineering tools using a common set of tasks. The collaborative experience discussed at WCRE involved several peer and complementary technologies that were applied in concert to solve a real life reverse engineering problem. For the most part, the tool developers themselves applied their own tools to this problem. Preliminary results have shown to the research community that we still have much to learn about our tools and how they can be applied as part of a reverse engineering and reengineering process. Consequently, the participants agreed to continue participation in this demonstration beyond the WCRE event.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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