Parallelizing top-down interprocedural analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modularity is a central theme in any scalable program analysis. The core idea in a modular analysis is to build summaries at procedure boundaries, and use the summary of a procedure to analyze the effect of calling it at its calling context. There are two ways to perform a modular program analysis: (1) top-down and (2) bottomup. A bottom-up analysis proceeds upwards from the leaves of the call graph, and analyzes each procedure in the most general calling context and builds its summary. In contrast, a top-down analysis starts from the root of the call graph, and proceeds downward, analyzing each procedure in its calling context. Top-down analyses have several applications in verification and software model checking. However, traditionally, bottom-up analyses have been easier to scale and parallelize than top-down analyses. In this paper, we propose a generic framework, BOLT, which uses MapReduce style parallelism to scale top-down analyses. In particular, we consider top-down analyses that are demand driven, such as the ones used for software model checking. In such analyses, each intraprocedural analysis happens in the context of a reachability query. A query Q over a procedure P results in query tree that consists of sub-queries over the procedures called by P . The key insight in BOLT is that the query tree can be explored in parallel using MapReduce style parallelism -- the map stage can be used to run a set of enabled queries in parallel, and the reduce stage can be used to manage inter-dependencies between queries. Iterating the map and reduce stages alternately, we can exploit the parallelism inherent in top-down analyses. Another unique feature of BOLT is that it is parameterized by the algorithm used for intraprocedural analysis. Several kinds of analyses, including may analyses, mustanalyses, and may-must-analyses can be parallelized using BOLT. We have implemented the BOLT framework and instantiated the intraprocedural parameter with a may-must-analysis. We have run BOLT on a test suite consisting of 45 Microsoft Windows device drivers and 150 safety properties. Our results demonstrate an average speedup of 3.71x and a maximum speedup of 7.4x (with 8 cores) over a sequential analysis. Moreover, in several checks where a sequential analysis fails, BOLT is able to successfully complete its analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".