A probabilistic pointer analysis for speculative optimizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pointer analysis is a critical compiler analysis used to disambiguate the indirect memory references that result from the use of pointers and pointer-based data structures. A conventional pointer analysis deduces for every pair of pointers, at any program point, whether a points-to relation between them (i) definitely exists, (ii) definitely does not exist, or (iii) maybe exists. Many compiler optimizations rely on accurate pointer analysis, and to ensure correctness cannot optimize in the maybe case. In contrast, recently-proposed speculative optimizations can aggressively exploit the maybe case, especially if the likelihood that two pointers alias can be quantified. This paper proposes a Probabilistic Pointer Analysis (PPA) algorithm that statically predicts the probability of each points-to relation at every program point. Building on simple control-flow edge profiling, our analysis is both one-level context and flow sensitive-yet can still scale to large programs including the SPEC 2000 integer benchmark suite. The key to our approach is to compute points-to probabilities through the use of linear transfer functions that are efficiently encoded as sparse matrices.We demonstrate that our analysis can provide accurate probabilities, even without edge-profile information. We also find that-even without considering probability information-our analysis provides an accurate approach to performing pointer 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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".