MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964642996 · doi:10.1145/1806672.1806680

Interprocedural induction variable analysis based on interprocedural SSA form IR

2010· article· en· W1964642996 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCompilerVariable (mathematics)Parallel computingHeap (data structure)AlgorithmProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The induction variable analysis is a fundamental component of loop optimizations in compilers. Algorithms in literature and implementations in free-source compilers such as GCC and LLVM rely on SSA form IR. However, only the uses of scalar stack variables whose address is not taken are replaced with a single definition in the SSA form IR. In this paper, we describe how Interprocedural SSA (ISSA) form IR can be leveraged to extend the induction variable analysis interprocedurally to: globals, singleton heap variables, record elements, and files. We implemented our induction variable analysis and compared it against the LLVM infrastructure for a set of MediaBench and SPEC2K benchmarks. We observed an average increase of 8.1% and 58.4% in the number of polynomial and monotonic induction variables, respectively. Furthermore, due to ISSA form IR and our induction variable analysis we computed 1.02 times more constant tripcounts and 2.06 times more loop invariant tripcounts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it