A delta‐oriented approach to support the safe reuse of black‐box code rewriters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Large‐scale corrective and perfective maintenance is often automated thanks to rewriting rules using tools such as Python2to3, Spoon, or Coccinelle. Such tools consider these rules as black‐boxes and compose multiple rules by chaining them: giving the output of a given rewriting rule as input to the next one. It is up to the developer to identify the right order (if it exists) among all the different rules to yield the right program. In this paper, we define a formal model compatible with the black‐box assumption that reifies the modifications (Δs) made by each rule. Leveraging these Δs, we propose a way to safely compose multiple rules when applied to the same program by (a) ensuring the isolated application of the different rules and (b) identifying unexpected behaviors that were silently ignored before. We assess this approach on two large‐scale case studies: (a) identifying conflicts in the Linux source‐code automated maintenance and (b) fixing energy antipatterns existing in Android applications available on GitHub.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".