MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412565297 · doi:10.1145/3749839

Tracing Optimization for Performance Modeling and Regression Detection

2025· article· en· W4412565297 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTracingProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software performance modeling plays a crucial role in developing and maintaining software systems. A performance model analytically describes the relationship between the performance of a system and its runtime activities. This process typically examines various aspects of a system’s runtime behavior, such as the execution frequency of functions or methods, to forecast performance metrics like program execution time. By using performance models, developers can predict expected performance and thereby effectively identify and address unexpected performance regressions when actual performance deviates from the model’s predictions. One common and precise method for capturing performance behavior is software tracing, which involves instrumenting the execution of a program, either at the kernel level (e.g., system calls) or application level (e.g., function calls). However, due to the nature of tracing, it can be highly resource-intensive, making it impractical for production environments where resources are limited. In this work, we propose statistical approaches to reduce tracing overhead by identifying and excluding performance-insensitive code regions, particularly application-level functions, from tracing while still building accurate performance models that can capture execution time degradations. We develop both dynamic methods that analyze runtime behavior patterns and static methods that examine code structure to identify performance-sensitive functions. Our methodology specifically targets execution time as the primary performance metric, building models that capture the relationship between function call frequencies and overall program latency. By selecting an optimal set of functions to be traced, we can construct optimized performance models that achieve an R 2 score of up to 99% and, in some cases, outperform full-tracing models (i.e., models using non-optimized tracing data), while significantly reducing the tracing overhead by more than 80% in most cases. Our optimized performance models can also effectively detect performance regressions in our studied programs, demonstrating their usefulness in distinguishing between normal workload variations and actual performance degradations. Finally, our approach is fully automated, making it ready to be used in production environments with minimal human effort.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.253 · 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