(To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP)) We introduce a systematic, concurrent execution scheme for Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) based on a previously proposed sequential goal-based CHR semantics. We establish strong correspondence results to the abstract CHR semantics, thus guaranteeing that any answer in the concurrent, goal-based CHR semantics is reproducible in the abstract CHR semantics. Our work provides the foundation to obtain efficient, parallel CHR execution schemes.
Asynchronous parallel production rule systems (e.g. Swarm @cite_22 , CREL @cite_2 ) introduce parallel rule execution via asynchronously running processors threads. In such systems, rules can fire asynchronously (not synchronized by production cycles), hence enforcing execution strategies is more difficult and limited. Similar to implementations of goal based CHR semantics rule matching is such systems often use a variant of the LEAPS @cite_11 lazy matching algorithm.
@cite_11 @cite_22 @cite_2
2963002787 2139801570 2163121173 2151197771
As datasets continue to increase in size and multi-core computer architectures are developed, asynchronous parallel optimization algorithms become more and more essential to the field of Machine Learning. Unfortunately, conducting the theoretical analysis asynchronous methods is difficult, notably due to the introduction of delay and inconsistency in inherently sequential algorithms. Handling these issues often requires resorting to simplifying but unrealistic assumptions. Through a novel perspective, we revisit and clarify a subtle but important technical issue present in a large fraction of the recent convergence rate proofs for asynchronous parallel optimization algorithms, and propose a simplification of the recently introduced "perturbed iterate" framework that resolves it. We demonstrate the usefulness of our new framework by analyzing three distinct asynchronous parallel incremental optimization algorithms: Hogwild(asynchronous Sgd), Kromagnon(asynchronous Svrg) and Asaga, a novel asynchronous parallel version of the incremental gradient algorithm Saga that enjoys fast linear convergence rates. We are able to both remove problematic assumptions and obtain better theoretical results. Notably, we prove that Asaga and Kromagnon can obtain a theoretical linear speedup on multi-core systems even without sparsity assumptions. We present results of an implementation on a 40-core architecture illustrating the practical speedups as well as the hardware overhead. Finally, we investigate the overlap constant, an ill-understood but central quantity for the theoretical analysis of asynchronous parallel algorithms. We find that it encompasses much more complexity than suggested in previous work, and often is order-of-magnitude bigger than traditionally thought. We consider parallel algorithms working in sequential global time, for example, circuits or parallel random access machines (PRAMs). Parallel abstract state machines (parallel ASMs) are such parallel algorithms, and the parallel ASM thesis asserts that every parallel algorithm is behaviorally equivalent to a parallel ASM. In an earlier article, we axiomatized parallel algorithms, proved the ASM thesis, and proved that every parallel ASM satisfies the axioms. It turned out that we were too timid in formulating the axioms; they did not allow a parallel algorithm to create components on the fly. This restriction did not hinder us from proving that the usual parallel models, like circuits or PRAMs or even alternating Turing machines, satisfy the postulates. But it resulted in an error in our attempt to prove that parallel ASMs always satisfy the postulates. To correct the error, we liberalize our axioms and allow on-the-fly creation of new parallel components. We believe that the improved axioms accurately express what parallel algorithms ought to be. We prove the parallel thesis for the new, corrected notion of parallel algorithms, and we check that parallel ASMs satisfy the new axioms. Building correct and efficient concurrent algorithms is known to be a difficult problem of fundamental importance. To achieve efficiency, designers try to remove unnecessary and costly synchronization. However, not only is this manual trial-and-error process ad-hoc, time consuming and error-prone, but it often leaves designers pondering the question of: is it inherently impossible to eliminate certain synchronization, or is it that I was unable to eliminate it on this attempt and I should keep trying? In this paper we respond to this question. We prove that it is impossible to build concurrent implementations of classic and ubiquitous specifications such as sets, queues, stacks, mutual exclusion and read-modify-write operations, that completely eliminate the use of expensive synchronization. We prove that one cannot avoid the use of either: i) read-after-write (RAW), where a write to shared variable A is followed by a read to a different shared variable B without a write to B in between, or ii) atomic write-after-read (AWAR), where an atomic operation reads and then writes to shared locations. Unfortunately, enforcing RAW or AWAR is expensive on all current mainstream processors. To enforce RAW, memory ordering--also called fence or barrier--instructions must be used. To enforce AWAR, atomic instructions such as compare-and-swap are required. However, these instructions are typically substantially slower than regular instructions. Although algorithm designers frequently struggle to avoid RAW and AWAR, their attempts are often futile. Our result characterizes the cases where avoiding RAW and AWAR is impossible. On the flip side, our result can be used to guide designers towards new algorithms where RAW and AWAR can be eliminated. A number of execution strategies for parallel evaluation of multi-join queries have been proposed in the literature; their performance was evaluated by simulation. In this paper we give a comparative performance evaluation of four execution strategies by implementing all of them on the same parallel database system, PRISMA DB. Experiments have been done up to 80 processors. The basic strategy is to first determine an execution schedule with minimum total cost and then parallelize this schedule with one of the four execution strategies. These strategies, coming from the literature, are named: Sequential Parallel, Synchronous Execution, Segmented Right-Deep, and Full Parallel. Based on the experiments clear guidelines are given when to use which strategy.