MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805845793 · doi:10.14288/1.0367029

Time-travel programming: programming language support for interacting with past executions

2018· article· en· W2805845793 on OpenAlexaff
Robin Salkeld

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgramming languageComputer scienceFirst-generation programming languageFifth-generation programming languageProgramming paradigm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because software so often behaves unexpectedly or fails only in production environments, several recent tools from both industry and academia record data about execution for the benefit of post-hoc analysis. Debugging on these data instead of a live program is much more difficult, however, because the semantic abstractions provided by the programming language are no longer available. Many post-hoc analysis tools process this data through additional reflection-based code or domain-specific query languages, but do not recover the expressive power of the original programming language. This thesis proposes the concept of time-travel programming, which we define as simulating the execution of additional code in the same programming language as if it were present in the past environment of recorded data. Furthermore, we show that the aspect-oriented programming (AOP) paradigm provides a natural mechanism for specifying this additional execution, and allows us to reuse established semantics and implementations. We provide evidence of this technique’s flexibility, feasibility and effectiveness through two implementations: one an interpreter for an extremely simple AOP language in the style of a core calculus, and one for the AspectJ programming language. We evaluate flexibility via applying the implementations to multiple execution recording formats, feasibility by showing the AspectJ implementation is performant enough for post-hoc analysis, and effectiveness by demonstrating that evaluating new and existing aspects retroactively can be used to address common post-hoc analysis tasks.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207