Uncovering Dependence Clusters and Linchpin Functions

Dependence clusters are (maximal) collections of mutually dependent source code entities according to some dependence relation. Their presence in software complicates many maintenance activities including testing, refactoring, and feature extraction. Despite several studies finding them common in production code, their formation, identification, and overall structure are not well understood, partly because of challenges in approximating true dependences between program entities. Previous research has considered two approximate dependence relations: a fine-grained statement-level relation using control and data dependences from a program’s System Dependence Graph and a coarser relation based on function-level controlflow reachability. In principal, the first is more expensive and more precise than the second. Using a collection of twenty programs, we present an empirical investigation of the clusters identified by these two approaches. In support of the analysis, we consider hybrid cluster types that works at the coarser function-level but is based on the higher-precision statement-level dependences. The three types of clusters are compared based on their slice sets using two clustering metrics. We also perform extensive analysis of the programs to identify linchpin functions – functions primarily responsible for holding a cluster together. Results include evidence that the less expensive, coarser approaches can often be used as e�ective proxies for the more expensive, finer-grained approaches. Finally, the linchpin analysis shows that linchpin functions can be e�ectively and automatically identified.

Conspicuous by their abstinence: the limited engagement of heroin users in English and Welsh Drug Recovery Wings

Background In recent years, an abstinence-focused, ‘recovery’ agenda has emerged in UK drug policy, largely in response to the perception that many opioid users had been ‘parked indefinitely’ on Opioid Substitution Therapy (OST). The introduction of ten pilot ‘Drug Recovery Wings’ (DRWs) in 2011 represents the application of this recovery agenda to prisons. This paper describes the DRWs’ operational models, the place of opiate dependent prisoners within them, and the challenges of delivering ‘recovery’ in prison. Methods In 2013, the implementation and operational models of all ten pilot DRWs were rapidly assessed. Up to three days were spent in each DRW, undertaking semi-structured interviews with a sample of 94 DRW staff and 102 DRW residents. Interviews were fully transcribed, and coded using grounded theory. Findings from the nine adult prisons are presented here. Results Four types of DRW were identified, distinguished by their size and selection criteria. Strikingly, no mid- or large-sized units regularly supported OST recipients through detoxification. Type A were large units whose residents were mostly on OST with long criminal records and few social or personal resources. Detoxification was rare, and medication reduction slow. Type B's mid-sized DRW was developed as a psychosocial support service for OST clients seeking detoxification. However, staff struggled to find such prisoners, and detoxification again proved rare. Type C DRWs focused on abstinence from all drugs, including OST. Though OST clients were not intentionally excluded, very few applied to these wings. Only Type D DRWs, offering intensive treatment on very small wings, regularly recruited OST recipients into abstinence-focused interventions. Conclusion Prison units wishing to support OST recipients in making greater progress towards abstinence may need to be small, intensive and take a stepped approach based on preparatory motivational work and extensive preparation for release. However, concerns about post-release deaths will remain.