MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393550488 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.8025835

Dynamic Slicing of WebAssembly Binaries

2023· dataset· en· W4393550488 on OpenAlexaff
Stiévenart Quentin, David Binkley, Coen De Roover

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2023
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlicingComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the replication package that accompanies the paper titled: "Dynamic Slicing of WebAssembly Binaries". # Slices dataset ## Generating the dataset The dynamic slices have been generated with [P-ORBS](https://syed-islam.github.io/research/program-analysis/#observation-based-program-slicing-orbs). The steps and scripts to generate the dynamic slices are included in the `slicing-steps/` directory. These steps also describe how to generate the `stats.csv` file that is included in this dataset. The static slices have been generated with [wassail](https://github.com/acieroid/wassail). The scripts to generate the static slices are included in the current directory (`generate-static-slices.sh` which relies on `run_wassail.sh`). These steps generate the file `static-stats.csv` that is included in this dataset. The `original-size.csv` file, included in this dataset, can be generated as follows: ```sh find subjects-wasm-extract-slice -name \*.c.wat -exec c_count {} \; | grep subjects > counts.txt echo 'slice,original fn slice' > evaluation/original-sizes.csv sed -E 's|^(.*) subjects-wasm-extract-slice/[^/]*/([^/]*)/.*$|\2,\1|' counts.txt >> evaluation/original-sizes.csv ``` The numbers in Table 1 of the paper (the list of programs in the dataset along with their sizes) can be generated as follows. For the WebAssembly files, we can count the function size: ``` find subjects-wasm-extract-slice -name \*.c.wat -exec c_count {} \; | grep subjects > counts.txt sed -E 's|^(.*) subjects-wasm-extract-slice/([^/]*)/.*$|\1 \2|' counts.txt | python evaluation/table1-wasm-mean.py ``` or the full program size: ``` find subjects-wasm-extract-slice -name t.wat -exec c_count {} \; | grep subjects > counts.txt sed -E 's|^(.*) subjects-wasm-extract-slice/([^/]*)/.*$|\1 \2|' counts.txt | python evaluation/table1-wasm-mean.py ``` ## Structure of the dataset The dataset is structured as follows: - `subjects/` contains the instrumented `.c` source code, along with scripts to generate the dynamic slices. The original source code can be obtained by removing the line `printf("\nORBS:%x\n....`. - `subjects-wasm-extract-slice/` contains the original WebAssembly programs to slice. Each program has two files: `t.wat` is the full binary file, and `name.c.wat` is the binary code of the function containing the slicing criterion. - `all_slices/` contains the slices. For example, program `adpcm_ah1_254_expr` has the following files - `adpcm/adpcm_ah1_254_expr/EWS_adpcm.wat`: the EWS slice - `adpcm/adpcm_ah1_254_expr/SEW_adpcm.wat`: the SEW slice - `adpcm/adpcm_ah1_254_expr/ESW_adpcm.wat`: the ESW slice - `adpcm/adpcm_ah1_254_expr/static_adpcm.wat.slice`: the SWS slice The other files are produced by intermediary steps and can be ignored. They are: - `adpcm/adpcm_ah1_254_expr/ESW_adpcm.wat.orig`: original (unsliced) binary *file* from which SW and ESW slices are computed - `adpcm/adpcm_ah1_254_expr/SEW_adpcm.wat.orig`: original (unsliced) binary *function* from which SEW slice is computed - `adpcm/adpcm_ah1_254_expr/SW_adpcm.wat`: slice of entire binary file from which ESW slice is extracted - `adpcm/adpcm_ah1_254_expr/WS_adpcm.wat`: compiled (binary) version of dynamic C slice from which EWS slice is extracted # Research questions ## RQ1 The script `./RQ1.py` found in the `evaluation/` directory generates: - Figure 3 (time.pdf) - The mean, min, max, and stddev of the times - How many slices are computed below 10, 100, 1000, and 10000 seconds ## RQ2 The script `./RQ2.py` found in the `evaluation/` directory generates: - Figure 4 (loc.pdf) - The mean, median, min, max, and stddev of the sizes - The largest differences between the approaches - The number of slices larger than the original program ## RQ3 and RQ4 The process for these research questions is manual and requires comparing slices. It cannot be automated. We did make heavy use of `diff --side-by-side` in this 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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.006

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.209 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207