MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6891584202 · doi:10.4230/lipics.disc.2024.7

A Fully Concurrent Adaptive Snapshot Object for RMWable Shared-Memory

2024· article· en· W6891584202 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsSnapshot (computer storage)ConcurrencyLinearizabilityConcurrent computingConstant (computer programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An adaptive RMWable snapshot object maintains an array A[0..m-1] of m readable shared memory objects that support an arbitrary set of read-modify-write (RMW) operations, in addition to Read(). Each array entry A[i] can be accessed by any process using an operation Invoke(i,op), which simply applies a supported RMW operation op to A[i] and returns the response of op. In addition, processes can record the state of the array by calling Click(). While Click() does not return anything, a process p can call Observe(i) to determine the value of A[i] at the point of p’s latest Click(). Recently, Jayanti, Jayanti, and Jayanti [Prasad Jayanti et al., 2024] presented an RMWable adaptive snapshot object, where all operations have constant step complexity. Their algorithm is single-scanner, meaning that Click() operations cannot be executed concurrently. We present the first fully concurrent RMWable adaptive snapshot object, where all operations can be executed concurrently, assuming the the system provides atomic Fetch-And-Increment and Compare-And-Swap operations. Click() and Invoke() operations have constant step complexity, and Observe() has step complexity O(log n). The total number of base objects needed is O(mnlog n).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207