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

Dynamic determinacy analysis

2013· article· en· W3004099993 on OpenAlexaff
Max Schäfer, Manu Sridharan, Julian Dolby, Frank Tip

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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

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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGPLAN NoticesSame topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207