Exploiting inter-sequence correlations for program behavior prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prediction of program dynamic behaviors is fundamental to program optimizations, resource management, and architecture reconfigurations. Most existing predictors are based on locality of program behaviors, subject to some inherent limitations. In this paper, we revisit the design philosophy and systematically explore a second source of clues: statistical correlations between the behavior sequences of different program entities. Concentrated on loops, it examines the correlations' existence, strength, and values in enhancing the design of program behavior predictors. It creates the first taxonomy of program behavior sequence patterns. It develops a new form of predictors, named sequence predictors, to effectively translate the correlations into large-scope, proactive predictions of program behavior sequences. It demonstrates the usefulness of the prediction in dynamic version selection and loop importance estimation, showing 19% average speedup on a number of real-world utility applications. By taking scope and timing of behavior prediction as the first-order design objectives, the new approach overcomes limitations of existing program behavior predictors, opening up many new opportunities for runtime optimizations at various layers of computing.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".