Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every processor with multiple cores sharing a cache needs to implement a cache-replacement algorithm. Previous work demonstrated that the competitive ratio of a large class of online algorithms, including Least-Recently-Used (LRU), grows with the length of the input. Furthermore, even offline algorithms like Furthest-In-Future, the optimal algorithm in single-core caching, cannot compete in the multicore setting. These negative results motivate a more in-depth comparison of multicore caching algorithms via alternative analysis measures. Specifically, the power of the adversary to adapt to online algorithms suggests the need for a direct comparison of online algorithms to each other. In this paper, we introduce cyclic analysis, a generalization of bijective analysis introduced by Angelopoulos and Schweitzer [JACM'13]. Cyclic analysis captures the advantages of bijective analysis while offering flexibility that makes it more useful for comparing algorithms for a variety online problems. In particular, we take the first steps beyond worst-case analysis for analysis of multicore caching algorithms. We use cyclic analysis to establish relationships between multicore caching algorithms, including the advantage of LRU over all other multicore caching algorithms in the presence of locality of reference.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".