MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004099993 · doi:10.1145/2499370.2462168

Dynamic determinacy analysis

2013· article· en· W3004099993 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGPLAN Notices · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceStatic analysisProgramming languageJavaScriptSoundnessDeterminacyProgram analysisFunctional programmingLeverage (statistics)Source codeScalabilityTheoretical computer scienceOperating systemArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an analysis for identifying determinate variables and expressions that always have the same value at a given program point. This information can be exploited by client analyses and tools to, e.g., identify dead code or specialize uses of dynamic language constructs such as eval, replacing them with equivalent static constructs. Our analysis is completely dynamic and only needs to observe a single execution of the program, yet the determinacy facts it infers hold for any execution. We present a formal soundness proof of the analysis for a simple imperative language, and a prototype implementation that handles full JavaScript. Finally, we report on two case studies that explored how static analysis for JavaScript could leverage the information gathered by dynamic determinacy analysis. We found that in some cases scalability of static pointer analysis was improved dramatically, and that many uses of runtime code generation could be eliminated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.252 · 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