MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100677024 · doi:10.1145/945526.945527

Some myths about famous mutual exclusion algorithms

2003· article· en· W2100677024 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

VenueACM SIGACT News · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMutual exclusionAlgorithmComputer scienceDijkstra's algorithmSoftwareProcess (computing)Theoretical computer scienceProgramming languageShortest path problem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dekker's algorithm[9] is the historically first software solution to mutual exclusion problem for 2-process case. The first software solution for n -process case was subsequently proposed by Dijkstra[8]. These two algorithms have become de facto examples of mutual exclusion algorithms, for their historical importance. Since the publication of Dijkstra's algorithm, there have been many solutions proposed in the literature [24, 1, 2]. In that, Peterson's algorithm [21] is one among the very popular algorithms. Peterson's algorithm has been extensively analyzed for its elegance and compactness. This paper attempts to dispel the myths about some of the properties of these three remarkable algorithms, by a systematic analysis.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.260
Teacher spread0.241 · 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