MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884245241 · doi:10.1515/itit-2018-0012

Dual-pivot and beyond: The potential of multiway partitioning in quicksort

2018· article· en· W2884245241 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venueit - Information Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuicksortComputer scienceParallel computingSortingAlgorithmSorting algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Since 2011 the Java runtime library uses a Quicksort variant with two pivot elements. For reasons that remained unclear for years it is faster than the previous Quicksort implementation by more than 10 %; this is not only surprising because the previous code was highly-tuned and is used in many programming libraries, but also since earlier theoretical investigations suggested that using several pivots in Quicksort is not helpful. In my dissertation I proved by a comprehensive mathematical analysis of all sensible Quicksort partitioning variants that (a) indeed there is hardly any advantage to be gained from multiway partitioning in terms of the number of comparisons (and more generally in terms of CPU costs), but (b) multiway partitioning does significantly reduce the amount of data to be moved between CPU and main memory. Moreover, this more efficient use of the memory hierarchy is not achieved by any of the other well-known optimizations of Quicksort, but only through the use of several pivots.

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)0.000
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 score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.233 · 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