Examining and Reducing the Influence of Sampling Errors on Feedback-Driven Optimizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feedback-driven optimization (FDO) is an important component in mainstream compilers. By allowing the compiler to reoptimize the program based on some profiles of the program's dynamic behaviors, it often enhances the quality of the generated code substantially. A barrier for using FDO is that it often requires many training runs to collect enough profiles to amortize the sensitivity of program optimizations to program input changes. Various sampling techniques have been explored to alleviate this time-consuming process. However, the lowered profile accuracy caused by sampling often hurts the benefits of FDO. This article gives the first systematic study in how sampling rates affect the accuracy of collected profiles and how the accuracy correlates with the usefulness of the profile for modern FDO. Studying basic block and edge profiles for FDO in two mature compilers reveals several counterintuitive observations, one of which is that profiling accuracy does not strongly correlate with the benefits of the FDO. A detailed analysis identifies three types of sampling-caused errors that critically impair the quality of the profiles for FDO. It then introduces a simple way to rectify profiles based on the findings. Experiments demonstrate that the simple rectification fixes most of those critical errors in sampled profiles and significantly enhances the effectiveness of FDO.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".