Learning basic block scheduling heuristics from optimal data
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it