MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008590694 · doi:10.1007/s001650200032

A Refinement Calculus for Shared-Variable Parallel and Distributed Programming

2002· article· en· W2008590694 on OpenAlexaff
Jürgen Dingel

Bibliographic record

VenueFormal Aspects of Computing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConcurrencyProgramming languageProcess calculusSoftware portabilityTheoretical computer scienceCommunicating sequential processesOperational semanticsSemantics (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Parallel computers have not yet had the expected impact on mainstream computing. Parallelism adds a level of complexity to the programming task that makes it very error-prone. Moreover, a large variety of very different parallel architectures exists. Porting an implementation from one machine to another may require substantial changes. This paper addresses some of these problems by developing a formal basis for the design of parallel programs in the form of a refinement calculus. The calculus allows the stepwise formal derivation of an abstract, low-level implementation from a trusted, high-level specification. The calculus thus helps structuring and documenting the development process. Portability is increased, because the introduction of a machine-dependent feature can be located in the refinement tree. Development efforts above this point in the tree are independent of that feature and are thus reusable. Moreover, the discovery of new, possibly more efficient solutions is facilitated. Last but not least, programs are correct by construction, which obviates the need for difficult debugging. Our programming/specification notation supports fair parallelism, shared-variable and message-passing concurrency, local variables and channels. The calculus rests on a compositional trace semantics that treats shared-variable and message-passing concurrency uniformly. The refinement relation combines a context-sensitive notion of trace inclusion and assumption-commitment reasoning to achieve compositionality. The calculus straddles both concurrency paradigms, that is, a shared-variable program can be refined into a distributed, message-passing program and vice versa.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFormal Aspects of ComputingSame topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207