MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233224619 · doi:10.1145/1103845.1094848

Incrementalization across object abstraction

2005· article· en· W4233224619 on OpenAlexaff
Yanhong A. Liu, Scott D. Stoller, Michael Gorbovitski, Tom Rothamel, Yanni Ellen Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGPLAN Notices · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAbstractionModular designImplementationComponent (thermodynamics)Object (grammar)Programming languageObject-oriented programmingDistributed computingTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Object abstraction supports the separation of what operations are provided by systems and components from how the operations are implemented, and is essential in enabling the construction of complex systems from components. Unfortunately, clear and modular implementations have poor performance when expensive query operations are repeated, while efficient implementations that incrementally maintain these query results are much more difficult to develop and to understand, because the code blows up significantly, and is no longer clear or modular.This paper describes a powerful and systematic method that first allows the "what" of each component to be specified in a clear and modular fashion and implemented straightforwardly in an object-oriented language; then analyzes the queries and updates, across object abstraction, in the straightforward implementation; and finally derives the sophisticated and efficient "how" of each component by incrementally maintaining the results of repeated expensive queries with respect to updates to their parameters. Our implementation and experimental results for example applications in query optimization, role-based access control, etc. demonstrate the effectiveness and benefit of the method.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGPLAN NoticesSame topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207