Learning basic block scheduling heuristics from optimal data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Instruction scheduling is an important step for improving the performance of object code produced by a compiler. The basic block instruction scheduling problem is to find a minimum length schedule for a basic block—a straightline sequence of code with a single entry point and a single exit point—subject to precedence, latency, and resource constraints. Solving the problem exactly is known to be difficult, and most compilers use a greedy list scheduling algorithm coupled with a heuristic. The heuristic is usually hand-crafted, a potentially timeconsuming process. In contrast, we present a study on automatically learning good heuristics using techniques from machine learning. In our study, a recently proposed optimal basic block scheduler was used to generate the machine learning training data. A decision tree learning algorithm was then used to induce a simple heuristic from the training data. The automatically constructed decision tree heuristic was compared against a popular criticalpath heuristic on the SPEC 2000 benchmarks. On this benchmark suite, the decision tree heuristic reduced the number of basic blocks that were not optimally scheduled by up to 55 % compared to the critical-path heuristic, Copyright c ○ 2005 Tyrel Russell, Abid M. Malik, Michael Chase, and Peter van Beek. Permission to copy is hereby granted provided the original copyright notice is reproduced in copies made. and gave improved performance guarantees in terms of the worst-case factor from optimality. 1
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".