On rolling back and checkpointing in time warp
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a family of three algorithms which serve to perform checkpoints and to roll back time warp. These algorithms are primarily intended for use in simulations in which there are a large number of LPs and in which events have a small computational granularity. Important representatives of this class are VLSI and computer network simulations. In each of our algorithms, LPs are gathered into clusters via algorithms which are application dependent. In order to examine the performance of our algorithms and to compare them to Time Warp, we made use of two of the largest digital logic circuits available from the ISCAS89 benchmark series of combinational circuits. The execution time, number of states saved, and maximal memory consumption were compared to the same quantities for time warp. Our results indicated that each of the algorithms occupies a different point in the spectrum of possible trade-offs between memory usage and execution time, ranging from substantial memory savings (at a comparable cost in speed) to memory savings and a comparable speed to time warp. Hence, an important benefit of our algorithms is the ability to trade off memory requirements with execution time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it