A Case for Richer Cross-Layer Abstractions: Bridging the Semantic Gap with Expressive Memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper makes a case for a new cross-layer interface, Expressive Memory (XMem), to communicate higher-level program semantics from the application to the system software and hardware architecture. XMem provides (i) a flexible and extensible abstraction, called an Atom, enabling the application to express key program semantics in terms of how the program accesses data and the attributes of the data itself, and (ii) new cross-layer interfaces to make the expressed higher-level information available to the underlying OS and architecture. By providing key information that is otherwise unavailable, XMem exposes a new, rich view of the program data to the OS and the different architectural components that optimize memory system performance (e.g., caches, memory controllers). By bridging the semantic gap between the application and the underlying memory resources, XMem provides two key benefits. First, it enables architectural/system-level techniques to leverage key program semantics that are challenging to predict or infer. Second, it improves the efficacy and portability of software optimizations by alleviating the need to tune code for specific hardware resources (e.g., cache space). While XMem is designed to enhance and enable a wide range of memory optimizations, we demonstrate the benefits of XMem using two use cases: (i) improving the performance portability of software-based cache optimization by expressing the semantics of data locality in the optimization and (ii) improving the performance of OS-based page placement in DRAM by leveraging the semantics of data structures and their access properties.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".