MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6893802102 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.4671169

MANDOLINE: Dynamic Slicing of Android Applications with Trace-Based Alias Analysis

2021· article· en· W6893802102 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

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgram slicingDebuggingSlicingAndroid (operating system)SuiteStatic analysisCall graphBenchmark (surveying)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic program slicing is used in a variety of tasks, including program debugging and security analysis. Building an efficient and effective dynamic slicing tool is a challenging task, especially in an Android environment, where programs are event-driven, asynchronous, and interleave code written by a developer with the code of the underlying Android platform. The user-facing nature of Android applications further complicates matters as the slicing solution has to maintain a low overhead to avoid substantial application slowdown. In this paper, we propose an accurate and efficient dynamic slicing technique for Android applications and implement it in a tool named MANDOLINE. The core idea behind our technique is to use minimal, low-overhead instrumentation followed by sophisticated, on-demand execution trace analysis for constructing a dynamic slice. We also contribute a benchmark suite of Android applications with manually constructed dynamic slices that use a faulty line of code as a slicing criterion. We evaluate MANDOLINE on that benchmark suite and show that it is substantially more accurate and efficient than the state-of-the-art dynamic slicing technique named ANDROIDSLICER.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.248 · 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