An Associativity Threshold Phenomenon in Set-Associative Caches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an $α$-way set-associative cache, the cache is partitioned into disjoint sets of size $α$, and each item can only be cached in one set, typically selected via a hash function. Set-associative caches are widely used and have many benefits, e.g., in terms of latency or concurrency, over fully associative caches, but they often incur more cache misses. As the set size $α$ decreases, the benefits increase, but the paging costs worsen. In this paper we characterize the performance of an $α$-way set-associative LRU cache of total size $k$, as a function of $α= α(k)$. We prove the following, assuming that sets are selected using a fully random hash function: - For $α= ω(\log k)$, the paging cost of an $α$-way set-associative LRU cache is within additive $O(1)$ of that a fully-associative LRU cache of size $(1-o(1))k$, with probability $1 - 1/\operatorname{poly}(k)$, for all request sequences of length $\operatorname{poly}(k)$. - For $α= o(\log k)$, and for all $c = O(1)$ and $r = O(1)$, the paging cost of an $α$-way set-associative LRU cache is not within a factor $c$ of that a fully-associative LRU cache of size $k/r$, for some request sequence of length $O(k^{1.01})$. - For $α= ω(\log k)$, if the hash function can be occasionally changed, the paging cost of an $α$-way set-associative LRU cache is within a factor $1 + o(1)$ of that a fully-associative LRU cache of size $(1-o(1))k$, with probability $1 - 1/\operatorname{poly}(k)$, for request sequences of arbitrary (e.g., super-polynomial) length. Some of our results generalize to other paging algorithms besides LRU, such as least-frequently used (LFU).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".