An empirical evaluation of static, dynamic, and hybrid slicing of WebAssembly binaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The WebAssembly standard aims to form a portable compilation target, enabling the cross-platform distribution of programs written in a variety of languages. This paper introduces and evaluates novel slicing approaches for WebAssembly, including dynamic and hybrid approaches. Given a program and a location in that program, a program slice is a reduced program that preserves the behavior at the given location. A static slice does so for all possible inputs, while a dynamic slice does so for a fixed set of inputs. Hybrid slicing is a combination of static and dynamic slicing. We build on Observational-Based Slicing (ORBS), where we explore the design space for instantiating ORBS for WebAssembly. For example, ORBS can be applied to the whole program or to only the function containing the slicing criterion, and it can be applied before compilation to WebAssembly or afterwards. We evaluate the slices produced using various options quantitatively and qualitatively. Our evaluation reveals that dynamic slicing at the level of a function from a WebAssembly binary finds a sweet spot in terms of slice time and slice size, and that a combination of static and dynamic slicers achieves the best trade-off in terms of slicing time and slice size.
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 | 0.011 | 0.070 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".