MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898295052 · doi:10.1145/3281287.3281294

Building JIT compilers for dynamic languages with low development effort

2018· article· en· W2898295052 on OpenAlexafffund
Baptiste Saleil, Marc Feeley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceCompilerJust-in-time compilationProgramming languageIntermediate languageMachine codeAbstract syntax treeScheme (mathematics)InterpreterCode generationCode (set theory)Compiled languageImplementationVirtual machineSyntaxParallel computingHigh-level programming languageOperating systemParsingArtificial intelligenceSet (abstract data type)Programming paradigm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building high performance virtual machines for dynamic languages usually requires significant development effort. They may require an interpreter and one or more compilation phases to generate efficient code. In addition, they may require several static analyses using custom intermediate representation(s). This paper presents techniques used to implement virtual machines for dynamic languages with relatively low development effort and good performance. These techniques allow compiling directly from the abstract syntax tree to target machine code while still enabling useful optimizations and without using any intermediate representation. We have used these techniques to implement a JIT compiler for Scheme. We show that performance of the generated code competes with the code generated by mature Scheme implementations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207