Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many years, programmers have faced the problem of reading and trying to understand other programmers' code, either to maintain it or to learn from it. Analysis of dynamic data structure usage is useful for both program understanding and for improving the accuracy of other program analyses. Data structure usage has been the target of various static techniques. Static approaches, however, may suffer from reduced accuracy in complex situations and have the potential to be overly-conservative in their approximation. An accurate, clean picture of runtime heap activity is difficult to achieve. We have designed and implemented a dynamic heap analysis system that allows one to examine and analyze how Java programs build and modify data structures. Using a complete execution trace from a profiled run of the program, we build an internal representation that mirrors the evolving runtime data structures. The resulting series of representations can then be analyzed and visualized. This gives us an accurate representation of the data structures created and an insight into the program's behaviour. Furthermore we show how to use our approach to help understand how programs use data structures, the precise effect of garbage collection, and to establish limits on static data structure analysis. A deep understanding of dynamic data structures is particularly important for modern, object-oriented languages that make extensive use of heap-based data structures. These analysis results can be useful for an important group of applications such as parallelization, garbage collection optimization, program understanding or improvements to other optimization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".