JPerfEvo: A Tool for Tracking Method-Level Performance Changes in Java Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance regressions and improvements are common phenomena in software development, occurring periodically as software evolves and matures. When developers introduce new changes to a program’s codebase, unforeseen performance variations may arise. Identifying these changes at the method level, however, can be challenging due to the complexity and scale of modern codebases. In this work, we present JPerfEvo, a tool designed to automate the evaluation of the method-level performance impact of each code commit (i.e., the performance variations between the two versions before and after a commit). Leveraging the Java Microbenchmark Harness (JMH) module for benchmarking the modified methods, JPerfEvo instruments their execution and applies robust statistical evaluations to detect performance changes. The tool can classify these changes as performance improvements, regressions, or neutral (i.e., no change), with the change magnitude. We evaluated JPerfEvo on three popular and mature open-source Java projects, demonstrating its effectiveness in identifying performance changes throughout their development histories.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".