MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3140162682 · doi:10.1145/543552.512542

Profile-guided code compression

2002· article· en· W3140162682 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 · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceExecutableMemory footprintCode (set theory)Overhead (engineering)Compression (physics)SoftwareDead codeEmbedded systemSet (abstract data type)Operating systemProgramming languageCode generationRedundant codeKey (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As computers are increasingly used in contexts where the amount of available memory is limited, it becomes important to devise techniques that reduce the memory footprint of application programs while leaving them in an executable form. This paper describes an approach to applying data compression techniques to reduce the size of infrequently executed portions of a program. The compressed code is decompressed dynamically (via software) if needed, prior to execution. The use of data compression techniques increases the amount of code size reduction that can be achieved; their application to infrequently executed code limits the runtime overhead due to dynamic decompression; and the use of software decompression renders the approach generally applicable, without requiring specialized hardware. The code size reductions obtained depend on the threshold used to determine what code is "infrequently executed" and hence should be compressed: for low thresholds, we see size reductions of 13.7% to 18.8%, on average, for a set of embedded applications, without excessive runtime overhead.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.230 · 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