scholarly journals Soundness of a Dataflow Analysis for Memory Monitoring

2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-108
Author(s):  
Dara Ly ◽  
Nikolai Kosmatov ◽  
Julien Signoles ◽  
Frédéric Loulergue
2000 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Schneider ◽  
Mechtild Visé ◽  
Kathrin Lockl ◽  
Thomas O Nelson

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (EICS) ◽  
pp. 1-34
Author(s):  
Markus Weninger ◽  
Elias Gander ◽  
Hanspeter Mössenböck

Many monitoring tools that help developers in analyzing the run-time behavior of their applications share a common shortcoming: they require their users to have a fair amount of experience in monitoring applications to understand the used terminology and the available analysis features. Consequently, novice users who lack this knowledge often struggle to use these tools efficiently. In this paper, we introduce the guided exploration (GE) method that aims to make interactive monitoring tools easier to use and learn. In general, tools that implement GE should provide four support operations on each analysis step: they should automatically (1) detect and (2) highlight the most important information on the screen, (3) explain why it is important, and (4) suggest which next steps are appropriate. This way, tools guide users through their analysis processes, helping them to explore the root cause of a problem. At the same time, users learn the capabilities of the tool and how to use them efficiently. We show how GE can be implemented in new monitoring tools as well as how it can be integrated into existing ones. To demonstrate GE's feasibility and usefulness, we present how we extended the memory monitoring tool AntTracks to provided guided exploration support during memory leak analysis and memory churn analysis. We use these guidances in two user scenarios to inspect and improve the memory behavior of the monitored applications. We hope that our contribution will help usability researchers and developers in making monitoring tools more novice-friendly by improving their usability and learnability.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipp Dominik Schubert ◽  
Richard Leer ◽  
Ben Hermann ◽  
Eric Bodden

1998 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 1148-1151
Author(s):  
JOHN M. ECKERD ◽  
KATHY ALLEY ◽  
DALE VOGELBACH

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Dolgoarshinnaia ◽  
Beatriz Martin-Luengo

Human memory is prone to memory errors and distortion. Evidence from studies on cognitive functions in bilinguals indicates that they might be prone to different types of memory errors compared to monolinguals; however, the effect of language in false memories is still understudied. Source monitoring processes required for proper memory functioning, presumably, rely on inhibitory control, which is also heavily utilized by bilinguals. Moreover, it is suggested that thinking in a second language leads to more systematic and deliberate reasoning. All these results lead to expect that bilinguals are more analytical when processing information in their second language overcoming some memory errors depending on the language of information. To test this hypothesis, we run a classical misinformation experiment with an explicit source monitoring task with a sample of Russian–English bilinguals. The language of the misinformation presentation did not affect the degree of the misinformation effect between the Russian and English languages. Source monitoring demonstrated an overall higher accuracy for attributions to the English source over the Russian source. Furthermore, analysis on incorrect source attributions showed that when participants misattributed the sources of false information (English or Russian narrative), they favored the Russian source over the not presented condition. Taken together, these results imply that high proficiency in the second language does not affect misinformation and that information processing and memory monitoring in bilinguals can differ depending on the language of the information, which seems to lead to some memory errors and not others.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document