Brief Announcement: On Solving Recoverable Mutual Exclusion Under System-Wide Failures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recoverable mutual exclusion (RME) is a fault-tolerant variation of Dijkstra's classic mutual exclusion (ME) problem that allows processes to fail by crashing as long as they recover eventually. A growing body of literature on this topic, starting with the problem formulation by Golab and Ramaraju (PODC'16), examines the cost of solving the RME problem, which is quantified by counting expensive shared memory operations called remote memory references (RMRs), under a variety of conditions. Published results show that the RMR complexity of RME algorithms, among other factors, depends crucially on the failure model used: individual process versus system-wide. Recent work by Golab and Hendler (PODC'18) also suggests that explicit failure detection can be helpful in attaining constant RMR solutions to the RME problem in the system-wide failure model. Follow-up work by Jayanti et al. (SPAA'23) shows that such a solution exists even without employing a failure detector, albeit this solution uses a more complex algorithmic approach.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.010 |
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".