MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417034885 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.03972

OOPredictor: Predicting Object-Oriented Accesses using Static Analysis

2025· preprint· W4417034885 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hassan Arafat, Kenneth B. Kent, Julian Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNew Brunswick Innovation Foundation
KeywordsStatic analysisPointer (user interface)CopyingPointer analysisProfiling (computer programming)CacheMarkov chainJavaIndirectionHeap (data structure)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Object-oriented Programming has become one of the most dominant design paradigms as the separation of concerns and adaptability of design reduce development and maintenance costs. However, the convenience is not without cost. The added indirection inherent in such designs causes excessive pointer chasing, negatively affecting locality, which in turn degrades the performance of cache structures. Furthermore, modern hardware prefetchers are mostly stride prefetchers that are ill-equipped to handle the unpredictability of access patterns generated by pointer chasing. Most software approaches that seek to address this problem resort to profiling the program as it runs, which comes with a significant run-time overhead or requires data from previous runs. In this paper, we propose the use of compile-time static analysis to predict the most common access patterns displayed by a program during run time. Since Java is one of the most popular object-oriented languages, we implement our prototype within the OpenJ9 JVM, inside the OMR optimizer infrastructure. The outputs of our proposed predictor are Markov chains that model the expected behavior of the program. The effectiveness of the proposed predictor is evaluated by comparing the model with the actual run-time behavior of the program measured using an instrumented interpreter. Our experiments show that the proposed predictor exhibits good accuracy and can be used to inform minimally intrusive load stall mitigation strategies, e.g. informing copying GCs on more locality-friendly copying orders

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicSoftware System Performance and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207