MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987942974 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.07444

A Code Injection Method for Rapid Docker Image Building

2019· preprint· en· W2987942974 on OpenAlexaff
Yujing Wang, Qinyang Bao

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCode (set theory)Image (mathematics)Computer scienceOperating systemProgramming languageArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Docker images are composed of multiple layers, each of which contains a set of instructions, and an archive of files. Layers allow Docker to separate a large build task into smaller ones, such that when a part of the program is changed, only the corresponding layer needs to be changed. Yet the current implementation has major inefficiencies that make the rebuilding of an image unnecessarily slow when changes in bottom layers are required: uneven content distribution amongst layers, the need to rebuild an entire layer during update, and the rebuild fall-throughs in many cases. In this paper, we propose a code injection method that overcomes these inefficiencies by targeting only the changed layer and then bypassing the layer's content checksum. This process is developed specifically for an interpreted language such as Python, where changes can be detected explicitly via text diff tools and run as-is without compilation. We then demonstrate that this method can accelerate the rebuild time, effectively reducing the O(n) where n = size of layer rebuild time to O(1). Whereas for compiled languages, literal code injection cannot guarantee integrity in compiled machine code. Expanding on the same code injection principle, multi-layer targeted code injection will be addressed in a future discussion.

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)0.008
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.166 · 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
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207