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

Some myths about famous mutual exclusion algorithms

2003· article· en· W2100677024 on OpenAlexaff
K. Alagarsamy

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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.016
Scholarly communication0.0040.020
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.019
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

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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations9
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGACT NewsSame topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207