MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766389817 · doi:10.23638/lmcs-15(2:10)2019

A Denotational Semantics for SPARC TSO

2019· preprint· en· W2766389817 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLogical Methods in Computer Science · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaScheme for Promotion of Academic and Research Collaboration
KeywordsDenotational semantics of the Actor modelNormalisation by evaluationDenotational semanticsProgramming languageComputer scienceModular designSemantics (computer science)AxiomPrinciple of compositionalityOperational semanticsTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The SPARC TSO weak memory model is defined axiomatically, with a non-compositional formulation that makes modular reasoning about programs difficult. Our denotational approach uses pomsets to provide a compositional semantics capturing exactly the behaviours permitted by SPARC TSO. It uses buffered states and an inductive definition of execution to assign an input-output meaning to pomsets. We show that our denotational account is sound and complete relative to the axiomatic account, that is, that it captures exactly the behaviours permitted by the axiomatic account. Our compositional approach facilitates the study of SPARC TSO and supports modular analysis of program behaviour.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.322 · 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