MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhanced State History Tree (eSHT): A Stateful Data Structure for Analysis of Highly Parallel System Traces

2016· article· en· W2529060894 on OpenAlexafffund
Loïc Prieur-Drevon, Raphaël Beamonte, Naser Ezzati‐Jivan, Michel Dagenais

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceStateful firewallTRACE (psycholinguistics)ScalabilityData structureThread (computing)Heap (data structure)DebuggingTree (set theory)Theoretical computer scienceDistributed computingParallel computingProgramming languageDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behaviors of distributed systems with many cores and/or many threads are difficult to understand. This is why dynamic analysis tools such as tracers are useful to collect run-time data and help programmers debug and optimize complex programs. However, manual trace analysis on very large traces with billions of events can be a difficult problem which automated trace visualizers and analyzers aim to solve. Trace analysis and visualization software needs fast access to data which it cannot achieve by searching through the entire trace for every query. A number of solutions have adopted stateful analysis which rearranges events into a more query friendly structures after a single pass through the trace. In this paper, we look into current implementations and model the behavior of previous work, the State History Tree (SHT), on traces with many thread creation and deletion. This allows us to identify which properties of the SHT are responsible for inefficient disk usage and high memory consumption. We then propose a more efficient data structure, the enhanced State History Tree (eSHT), to store and query computed states, in order to limit disk usage and reduce the query time for any state. Next, we compare the use of SHT and eSHT on traces with many attributes. We finally verify the scalability of our new data structure according to trace size. As shown by our results, the proposed solution makes near optimal use of disk space, reduces the algorithm's memory usage logarithmically for previously problematic cases, and speeds up queries on traces with many attributes by an order of magnitude. The proposed solution builds upon our previous work, enabling it to easily scale up to traces containing a million threads.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

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 communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207