Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past two decades, many concurrent data structures have been designed and implemented. Nearly all such work analyzes concurrent data structures empirically, omitting asymptotic bounds on their efficiency, partly because of the complexity of the analysis needed, and partly because of the difficulty of obtaining relevant asymptotic bounds: when the analysis takes into account important practical factors, such as contention, it is difficult or even impossible to prove desirable bounds. In this paper, we show that considering structured concurrency or relaxed concurrency models can enable establishing strong bounds, also for contention. To this end, we first present a dynamic relaxed counter data structure that indicates the non-zero status of the counter. Our data structure extends a recently proposed data structure, called SNZI, allowing our structure to grow dynamically in response to the increasing degree of concurrency in the system. Using the dynamic SNZI data structure, we then present a concurrent data structure for series-parallel directed acyclic graphs (sp-dags), a key data structure widely used in the implementation of modern parallel programming languages. The key component of sp-dags is an in-counter data structure that is an instance of our dynamic SNZI. We analyze the efficiency of our concurrent sp-dags and in-counter data structures under nested-parallel computing paradigm. This paradigm offers a structured model for concurrency. Under this model, we prove that our data structures require amortized (1) shared memory steps, including contention. We present an implementation and an experimental evaluation that suggests that the sp-dags data structure is practical and can perform well in practice.
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 | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".