MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020165959 · doi:10.1142/s0129626406002782

A HIGHLY CONCURRENT GROUP MUTUAL l-EXCLUSION ALGORITHM

2006· article· en· W2020165959 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

VenueParallel Processing Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMutual exclusionConcurrencyComputer scienceAsynchronous communicationGeneralizationCritical sectionAlgorithmGroup (periodic table)Process (computing)Suzuki-Kasami algorithmExtension (predicate logic)Theoretical computer scienceDistributed computingMathematicsProgramming languageComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The asynchronous group mutual exclusion (GME) problem [5] is a generalization of the (ordinary) mutual exclusion problem. Each process requests a forum. When a process is in the critical section (CS), we say its forum is held. The GME problem (i) allows at most one forum to be held at any time and, (ii) when a forum is held, encourages any number of processes requesting that forum to participate in that forum, that is, to be in the CS simultaneously. An extension of this problem, called the group mutual l-exclusion with multiple forum requests (GMLE-M) problem [8], allows each process to request multiple forums and up to l forums to be held simultaneously. In this paper, we give a simple GMLE-M algorithm that facilitates a highly concurrent participation of processes in forums. The algorithm uses a new technique, called automatic joining, that enables processes to enter the CS directly when their forums are being held. This technique can be used in other extensions of the GME problem also, to increase concurrency.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.217 · 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