Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research on mutual exclusion for shared-memory systems has focused on "local spin" algorithms. Performance is measured using the "remote memory references" (RMRs) metric. As common in recent literature, we consider a standard asynchronous shared memory model with N processes, which allows atomic read, write and compare-and-swap (short: CAS) operations. In such a model, the asymptotically tight upper and lower bound on the number of RMRs per passage through the Critical Section is Theta(log N) for the optimal deterministic algorithms (see Yang and Anderson,1995, and Attiya, Hendler and Woelfel, 2008). Recently, several randomized algorithms have been devised that break the Omega(log N) barrier and need only o(log N) RMRs per passage in expectation (see Hendler and Woelfel, 2010, Hendler and Woelfel, 2011, and Bender and Gilbert, 2011). In this paper we present the first randomized "abortable" mutual exclusion algorithm that achieves a sub-logarithmic expected RMR complexity. More precisely, against a weak adversary (which can make scheduling decisions based on the entire past history, but not the latest coin-flips of each process) every process needs an expected number of O(log N/ log log N) RMRs to enter end exit the critical section. If a process receives an abort-signal, it can abort an attempt to enter the critical section within a finite number of its own steps and by incurring O(log N/ log log N) RMRs.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".