MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147542998 · doi:10.1109/wcre.2003.1287250

Completeness of a fact extractor

2004· article· en· W2147542998 on OpenAlexaff
Yuan Lin, Richard C. Holt, Andrew J. Malton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompleteness (order theory)ExtractorComputer scienceProgramming languageSource codeMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of software reverse engineering commonlyuses an extractor, which parses source code and extractsfacts about the code. The level of detail in these factsvaries from extractor to extractor. This paper describesfour levels of increasingly detailed completeness of thesefacts: (semantic completeness, compiler completeness,syntax completeness and source completeness) andintroduces the concept of relative completeness ofextractors. Validating that an extractor correctlyproduces facts at a given level of completeness is ingeneral very challenging. This paper gives a method forvalidating the semantic completeness of an extractor, anddescribes the application of this method to CPPX, anextractor for C or C++ based on GCC.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207