MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154620955 · doi:10.1109/71.969122

On rolling back and checkpointing in time warp

2001· article· en· W2154620955 on OpenAlexaff
Hervé Avril, Carl Tropper

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Parallel computingExecution timeGranularityElectronic circuitVery-large-scale integrationAlgorithmSequential logicEmbedded systemLogic gate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations23
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed SystemsSame topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207