An empirical evaluation of two memory-efficient directory methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors present an empirical evaluation of two memory-efficient directory methods for maintaining coherent caches in large shared-memory multiprocessors. Both directory methods are modifications of a scheme proposed by L.M. Censier and P. Feautrier (1978) that does not rely on a specific interconnection network and can be readily distributed across interleaved main memory. The schemes considered here overcome the large amount of memory required for tags in the original scheme in two different ways. In the first scheme each main memory block is sectored into sub-blocks for which the large tag overhead is shared. In the second scheme a limited number of large tags are stored in an associative cache and shared among a much larger number of main memory blocks. Simulations show that in terms of access time and network traffic both directory methods provide significant performance improvements over a memory system in which shared-writable data are not cached. The large block sizes required for the sectored scheme, however, promote sufficient false sharing for its performance to be markedly worse than when a tag cache is used.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">></ETX>
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it