MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963419150 · doi:10.4230/lipics.disc.2017.4

Reuse, Don't Recycle: Transforming Lock-Free Algorithms That Throw Away Descriptors

2017· article· en· W2963419150 on OpenAlexafffund
Maya Arbel-Raviv, Trevor Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGlobal Affairs CanadaIsrael Science FoundationUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsComputer scienceAlgorithmOverhead (engineering)ReuseLock (firearm)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many lock-free algorithms, threads help one another, and each operation creates a descriptor that describes how other threads should help it. Allocating and reclaiming descriptors introduces significant space and time overhead. We introduce the first descriptor abstract data type (ADT), which captures the usage of descriptors by lock-free algorithms. We then develop a weak descriptor ADT which has weaker semantics, but can be implemented significantly more efficiently. We show how a large class of lock-free algorithms can be transformed to use weak descriptors, and demonstrate our technique by transforming several algorithms, including the leading k-compare-and-swap (k-CAS) algorithm. The original k-CAS algorithm allocates at least k+1 new descriptors per k-CAS. In contrast, our implementation allocates two descriptors per process, and each process simply reuses its two descriptors. Experiments on a variety of workloads show significant performance improvements over implementations that reclaim descriptors, and reductions of up to three orders of magnitude in peak memory usage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207