Minimizing memory requirements in rate-optimal schedules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We address the problem of minimizing buffer storage requirement in constructing rate-optimal compile-time schedules for multi-rate dataflow graphs. We demonstrate that this problem, called the Minimum Buffer Rate-Optimal (MBRO) scheduling problem, con be formulated as a unified linear programming problem. A novel feature of the method is that it tries to minimize the memory requirement while simultaneously maximizing the computation rate. We have constructed an experimental testbed which implements our scheduling algorithm as well as: the widely used periodic admissible parallel schedules proposed by R.A. Lee and D.A. Messerschmitt (1987); the optimal scheduling buffer allocation (OSBA) algorithm of Q. Ning and G.R. Gao (1993); and the multi-rate software pipelining (MRSP) algorithm (R. Govinderajan and G.R. Gao, 1993). The experimental results have demonstrated a significant improvement in buffer requirements for the MBRO schedules compared to the schedules generated by the other three methods. Compared to block schedules, MBRO schedules perform better in terms of both computation rate and buffer requirements. The average observed improvement in buffer storage is 26% with respect to the MRSP algorithm, 17% with respect to block schedules and 5% with respect to the OSBA formulation.>
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".