MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116466593 · doi:10.1142/s0129626403001483

Predicated Partial Redundancy Elimination using a Cost Analysis

2003· article· en· W2116466593 on OpenAlexaff
Bernhard Scholz, Eduard Mehofer, Nigel Horspool

Bibliographic record

VenueParallel Processing Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)Computer scienceExploitCompilerPartial evaluationProbabilistic logicComputationData-flow analysisTransformation (genetics)Static analysisParallel computingTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmProgramming languageData flow diagramArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Partial redundancy elimination (PRE) is a key technology for modern compilers. However traditional approaches are conservative and fail to exploit many opportunities for optimization. New PRE approaches which greatly increase the number of eliminated redundancies have been developed. However, they either cause the code size to explode or they cannot handle statements with side-effects. In this paper we describe a predicated partial redundancy elimination (PPRE) approach which can potentially remove all partial redundancies. To avoid performance overheads caused by predication, PPRE is applied selectively based on a cost model. The cost analysis presented in the paper utilizes probabilistic data-flow information to decide whether PPRE is profitable for each instance of a partially redundant computation. Refinements of the basic PPRE transformation are described in detail. In contrast to some other approaches our transformation is strictly semantics preserving.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParallel Processing LettersSame topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207