APEM — Approximate Performance Evaluation for Multi-Core Computers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mean Value Analysis (MVA) has long been a standard approach for performance analysis of computer systems. While the exact load-dependent MVA algorithm is an efficient technique for computer system performance modeling, it fails to address multi-core computer systems with Dynamic Frequency Scaling (DFS). In addition, the load-dependent MVA algorithm suffers from numerical difficulties under heavy load conditions. The goal of our paper is to find an efficient and robust method which is easy to use in practice and is also accurate for performance prediction for multi-core platforms. The proposed method, called Approximate Performance Evaluation for Multi-core computers (APEM), uses a flow-equivalent performance model designed specifically to address multi-core computer systems and identify the influence on the CPU demand of the effect of DFS. We adopt an approximation technique to estimate resource demands to parametrize MVA algorithms. To validate the application of our method, we investigate three case studies with extended TPC-W benchmark kits, showing that our method achieves better accuracy compared with other commonly used MVA algorithms. We compare the three different performance models, and we also extend our approach to multi-class models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".