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
Static analysis is increasingly used by companies and individual code developers to detect and fix bugs and security vulnerabilities. As programs grow more complex, the analyses have to support new code concepts, frameworks and libraries. However, static-analysis code itself is also prone to bugs. While more complex analyses are written and used in production systems every day, the cost of debugging and fixing them also increases tremendously. To understand the difficulties of debugging static analysis, we surveyed 115 static-analysis writers. From their responses, we determined the core requirements to build a debugger for static analyses, which revolve around two main issues: abstracting from both the analysis code and the code it analyses at the same time, and tracking the analysis internal state throughout both code bases. Most tools used by our survey participants lack the capabilities to address both issues. Focusing on those requirements, we introduce Visuflow, a debugging environment for static data-flow analysis. Visuflow features graph visualizations and custom breakpoints that enable users to view the state of an analysis at any time. In a user study on 20 static-analysis writers, Visuflow helped identify 25 and fix 50 percent more errors in the analysis code compared to the standard Eclipse debugging environment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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