Strongly Linearizable Implementations of Snapshots and Other Types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linearizability is the gold standard of correctness conditions for shared memory algorithms, and historically has been considered the practical equivalent of atomicity. However, it has been shown [1] that replacing atomic objects with linearizable implementations can affect the probability distribution of execution outcomes in randomized algorithms. Thus, linearizable objects are not always suitable replacements for atomic objects. A stricter correctness condition called strong linearizability has been developed and shown to be appropriate for randomized algorithms in a strong adaptive adversary model [1]. We devise several new lock-free strongly linearizable implementations from atomic registers. In particular, we give the first strongly linearizable lock-free snapshot implementation that uses bounded space. This improves on the unbounded space solution of Denysyuk and Woelfel [2]. As a building block, our algorithm uses a lock-free strongly linearizable ABA-detecting register. We obtain this object by modifying the wait-free linearizable ABA-detecting register of Aghazadeh and Woelfel [3], which, as we show, is not strongly linearizable. Aspnes and Herlihy [4] identified a wide class types that have wait-free linearizable implementations from atomic registers. These types require that any pair of operations either commute, or one overwrites the other. Aspnes and Herlihy gave a general wait-free linearizable implementation of such types, employing a wait-free linearizable snapshot object. Replacing that snapshot object with our lock-free strongly linearizable one, we prove that all types in this class have a lock-free strongly linearizable implementation from atomic registers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".