MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022652334 · doi:10.1145/1011767.1011778

Efficient synchronous snapshots

2004· article· en· W2022652334 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Brodsky, Faith E. Fich

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnapshot (computer storage)Asynchronous communicationComputer scienceBinary logarithmImplementationExecution timeParallel computingTime complexityAlgorithmReal-time computingTheoretical computer scienceDiscrete mathematicsMathematicsOperating systemProgramming languageComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A snapshot is an important object in distributed computing whose implementation in asynchronous systems has been studied extensively. It consists of a collection of m >1 components, each storing a value, and supports two atomic operations: an UPDATE of a specified component's value and a SCAN of all components to determine their values at some point in time.In this paper, we investigate implementations of a multiwriter snapshot object in a synchronous shared memory model. In this setting, we show that a snapshot object can be efficiently implemented and prove a tight tradeoff between the complexity of the SCAN and the UPDATE operations. First, we describe a wait-free implementation that performs UPDATE in O(1) time and SCAN in O(m) time, using only slightly more than twice the amount of space needed to simply store the m values. We also describe a variant that performs UPDATE in O(1) time and SCAN in O(n) time.Second, we describe a wait-free implementation that performs UPDATE in O(log m) time and SCAN in O(1) time, and a variant that performs UPDATE in O(log n) time and SCAN in O(1) time.Third, we show how to combine these implementations to realize two implementations that perform UPDATE in Θ(log(m/c)) time and SCAN in Θ(c) time, for 1≤c≤m, or perform UPDATE in Θ(log(n/c)) time and SCAN in Θ(c) time, for 1≤c≤n. This implies that Time[UPDATE] ∈O(log(minm,n/Time[SCAN])). We also prove that Time[UPDATE] ∈ Ω(log(minm,n/Time[SCAN]) ), which matches our upper bound.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.220
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207