MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124451038 · doi:10.1109/saci.2011.5873061

Accelerating N-queens problem using OpenMP

2011· article· en· W2124451038 on OpenAlexaff
Alan Ayala, Hussein Al Osman, Daniel Shapiro, John-Marc Desmarais, Jonathan Parri, Miodrag Bolić, Voicu Groza

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBacktrackingSpeedupRewritingComputer scienceLook-aheadParallel computingSpace (punctuation)Theoretical computer scienceAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsProgramming languageOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Backtracking algorithms are used to methodically and exhaustively search a solution space for an optimal solution to a given problem. A classic example of a backtracking algorithm is illustrated by finding all solutions to the problem of placing N-queens on an N × N chess board such that no two queens attack each other. This paper demonstrates a methodology for rewriting this backtracking algorithm to take advantage of multi-core computing resources. We accelerated a sequential version of the N-queens problem on ×86 and PPC64 architectures. Using problem sizes between 13 and 17, we observed an average speedup of 3.24 for ×86 and 9.24 for the PPC64.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207