Lightweight reference affinity analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that array regrouping and structure splitting significantly improve data locality. The most effective technique relies on profiling every access to every data element. The high overhead impedes its adoption in a general compiler, In this paper, we show that for array regrouping in scientific programs, the overhead is not needed since the same benefit can be obtained by pure program analysis.We present an interprocedural analysis technique for array regrouping. For each global array, the analysis summarizes the access pattern by access-frequency vectors and then groups arrays with similar vectors. The analysis is context sensitive, so it tracks the exact array access. For each loop or function call, it uses two methods to estimate the frequency of the execution. The first is symbolic analysis in the compiler. The second is lightweight profiling of the code. The same interprocedural analysis is used to cumulate the overall execution frequency by considering the calling context. We implemented a prototype of both the compiler and the profiling analysis in the IBM® compiler, evaluated array regrouping on the entire set of SPEC CPU2000 FORTRAN benchmarks, and compared different analysis methods. The pure compiler-based array regrouping improves the performance for the majority of programs, leaving little room for improvement by code or data profiling.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".