MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988126082 · doi:10.1109/vissoft.2019.00019

CloneCompass: Visualizations for Exploring Assembly Code Clone Ecosystems

2019· article· en· W2988126082 on OpenAlexaff
Wang Ying, Jorin Weatherston, Margaret‐Anne Storey, Daniel M. Germán

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceclone (Java method)Source codeCode (set theory)CodebaseSoftware engineeringSoftwareFunction (biology)VisualizationProcess (computing)Programming languageData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assembly code analysis is an intensive process undertaken by security analysts and reverse engineers to discover vulnerabilities in existing software when source code is unavailable. Kam1n0 is an efficient code clone search engine that facilitates assembly code analysis. However, Kam1n0 search results can contain millions of function-clone pairs, and efficiently exploring and comprehensively understanding the resulting data can be challenging. This paper presents a design study whereby we collaborated with analyst stakeholders to identify requirements for a tool that visualizes and scales to millions of function-clone pairs. These requirements led to the design of an interactive visual tool, CloneCompass, consisting of novel TreeMap Matrix and Adjacency Matrix visualizations to aid in the exploration of assembly code clones extracted from Kam1n0. We conducted a preliminary evaluation with the analyst stakeholders and show how CloneCompass enables these users to visually and interactively explore code clone data generated from software systems with suspected vulnerabilities.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207