MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162762034 · doi:10.1145/586088.586090

Practical extraction techniques for Java

2002· article· en· W2162762034 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 · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceJavaModular designProgramming languageClass (philosophy)SoftwareOperating systemArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reducing application size is important for software that is distributed via the internet, in order to keep download times manageable, and in the domain of embedded systems, where applications are often stored in (Read-Only or Flash) memory. This paper explores extraction techniques such as the removal of unreachable methods and redundant fields, inlining of method calls, and transformation of the class hierarchy for reducing application size. We implemented a number of extraction techniques in Jax , an application extractor for Java, and evaluated their effectiveness on a set of large Java applications. We found that, on average, the class file archives for these benchmarks were reduced to 37.5% of their original size. Modeling dynamic language features such as reflection, and extracting software distributions other than complete applications requires additional user input. We present a uniform approach for supplying this input that relies on MEL, a modular specification language. We also discuss a number of issues and challenges associated with the extraction of embedded systems applications.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.309 · 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