Synthesis of divide and conquer parallelism for loops
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
Divide-and-conquer is a common parallel programming skeleton supported by many cross-platform multithreaded libraries, and most commonly used by programmers for parallelization. The challenges of producing (manually or automatically) a correct divide-and-conquer parallel program from a given sequential code are two-fold: (1) assuming that a good solution exists where individual worker threads execute a code identical to the sequential one, the programmer has to provide the extra code for dividing the tasks and combining the partial results (i.e. joins), and (2) the sequential code may not be suitable for divide-and-conquer parallelization as is, and may need to be modified to become a part of a good solution. We address both challenges in this paper. We present an automated synthesis technique to synthesize correct joins and an algorithm for modifying the sequential code to make it suitable for parallelization when necessary. This paper focuses on class of loops that traverse a read-only collection and compute a scalar function over that collection. We present theoretical results for when the necessary modifications to sequential code are possible, theoretical guarantees for the algorithmic solutions presented here, and experimental evaluation of the approach's success in practice and the quality of the produced parallel programs.
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 | 0.001 | 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