dhil/phd-dissertation
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/dhil/phd-dissertation synced 2026-03-13 02:58:26 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

Fiddling with tikz

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Daniel Hillerström
2021-05-25 21:08:30 +01:00
parent 836d85ea99
commit 5c835f5179
1 changed files with 181 additions and 133 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

314
thesis.tex
View File

@@ -27,7 +27,9 @@
\usepackage{float} % Float control \usepackage{float} % Float control
\usepackage{caption,subcaption} % Sub figures support \usepackage{caption,subcaption} % Sub figures support
\DeclareCaptionFormat{underlinedfigure}{#1#2#3\hrulefill} \DeclareCaptionFormat{underlinedfigure}{#1#2#3\hrulefill}
\DeclareCaptionFormat{subfig}{#1#2#3}
\captionsetup[figure]{format=underlinedfigure} \captionsetup[figure]{format=underlinedfigure}
\captionsetup[subfigure]{format=subfig}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} % Fixes issues with accented characters \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} % Fixes issues with accented characters
%\usepackage{libertine} %\usepackage{libertine}
%\usepackage{lmodern} %\usepackage{lmodern}
@@ -16150,9 +16152,9 @@ applying it to $\dec{q}_1$ or $\dec{q}_2$ yields $\True$.
\centering \centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.1\textwidth} \begin{subfigure}{0.1\textwidth}
\begin{center} \begin{center}
\vspace*{6.5ex} % \vspace*{-2.5ex}
\scalebox{1.0}{\TTZeroModel} \scalebox{1.3}{\TTZeroModel}
\vspace*{6.5ex} \vspace*{13.5ex}
\end{center} \end{center}
\caption{$\dec{T}_0$} \caption{$\dec{T}_0$}
\label{fig:tt0-tree} \label{fig:tt0-tree}
@@ -16160,7 +16162,7 @@ applying it to $\dec{q}_1$ or $\dec{q}_2$ yields $\True$.
% %
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth} \begin{subfigure}{0.3\textwidth}
\begin{center} \begin{center}
\scalebox{1.0}{\ShortConjModel} \scalebox{1.3}{\ShortConjModel}
\end{center} \end{center}
\caption{$\dec{I}_2$} \caption{$\dec{I}_2$}
\label{fig:div1-tree} \label{fig:div1-tree}
@@ -16168,9 +16170,9 @@ applying it to $\dec{q}_1$ or $\dec{q}_2$ yields $\True$.
% %
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\textwidth} \begin{subfigure}{0.4\textwidth}
\begin{center} \begin{center}
\scalebox{1.0}{\XORTwoModel} \scalebox{1.3}{\XORTwoModel}
\end{center} \end{center}
\caption{$\dec{Odd}_2$} \caption{$\dec{odd}_2$}
\label{fig:xor2-tree} \label{fig:xor2-tree}
\end{subfigure} \end{subfigure}
\caption{Examples of decision trees.} \caption{Examples of decision trees.}
@@ -16350,9 +16352,11 @@ undefined or both are defined and $a = b$.
It is convenient to define the timed tree and then extract the untimed one from it: It is convenient to define the timed tree and then extract the untimed one from it:
\begin{definition}\label{def:model-construction} \begin{definition}\label{def:model-construction}
(i) Define $\tr: \Conf_q \to \Addr \pto (\Lab \times \N)$ to be the ~
minimal family of partial functions satisfying the following \begin{enumerate}[(i)]
equations: \item Define $\tr: \Conf_q \to \Addr \pto (\Lab \times \N)$ to be
the minimal family of partial functions satisfying the following
equations:
% %
{ {
\begin{mathpar} \begin{mathpar}
@@ -16378,23 +16382,26 @@ $\gamma(q) = \gamma'(q) = q$.
Clearly $\tr(\conf)$ is a timed decision tree for any $\conf \in \Conf_q$. Clearly $\tr(\conf)$ is a timed decision tree for any $\conf \in \Conf_q$.
% %
(ii) The timed decision tree of a computation term is obtained by placing it in \item The timed decision tree of a computation term is obtained by
the initial configuration: placing it in the initial configuration:
% %
$\tr(M) \defas \tr(\cek{M, \emptyset[q \mapsto q], \kappa_0})$. $\tr(M) \defas \tr(\cek{M, \emptyset[q \mapsto q], \kappa_0})$.
% %
(iii) The timed decision tree of a closed value $P:\Predicate$ is $\tr(P\,q)$. \item The timed decision tree of a closed value $P:\Predicate$ is
Since $q$ plays the role of a dummy argument, we will usually omit it and write $\tr(P)$ for $\tr(P\,q)$. $\tr(P\,q)$. Since $q$ plays the role of a dummy argument, we will
usually omit it and write $\tr(P)$ for $\tr(P\,q)$.
(iv) The untimed decision tree $\tru(P)$ is obtained from $\tr(P)$ via \item The untimed decision tree $\tru(P)$ is obtained from $\tr(P)$
first projection: $\tru(P) = \labs(\tr(P))$. via first projection: $\tru(P) = \labs(\tr(P))$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition} \end{definition}
If the execution of a configuration $\conf$ runs forever or gets stuck at an unhandled operation, If the execution of a configuration $\conf$ runs forever or gets stuck
then $\tr(\conf)(bs)$ will be undefined for all $bs$. at an unhandled operation, then $\tr(\conf)(bs)$ will be undefined for
Although this is admitted by our definition of decision tree, we wish to exclude such behaviours all $bs$. Although this is admitted by our definition of decision
for the terms we accept as valid predicates. Specifically, we frame the following definition: tree, we wish to exclude such behaviours for the terms we accept as
valid predicates. Specifically, we frame the following definition:
\begin{definition} \label{def:n-predicate} \begin{definition} \label{def:n-predicate}
A decision tree $\tree$ is an \emph{$n$-predicate tree} if it satisfies the following: A decision tree $\tree$ is an \emph{$n$-predicate tree} if it satisfies the following:
@@ -16407,9 +16414,9 @@ A decision tree $\tree$ is an \emph{$n$-predicate tree} if it satisfies the foll
A closed term $P: \Predicate$ is a \emph{(syntactic) $n$-predicate} if $\tru(P)$ is an $n$-predicate tree. A closed term $P: \Predicate$ is a \emph{(syntactic) $n$-predicate} if $\tru(P)$ is an $n$-predicate tree.
\end{definition} \end{definition}
If $\tree$ is an $n$-predicate tree, clearly any semantic $n$-point $\pi$ gives rise to a path $b_0 b_1 \dots $ If $\tree$ is an $n$-predicate tree, clearly any semantic $n$-point
through $\tree$, given inductively by: $\pi$ gives rise to a path $b_0 b_1 \dots $ through $\tree$, given
{ inductively by: {
\[ \forall j.~ \mbox{if~} \tau(b_0\dots b_{j-1}) = \query k_j \mbox{~then~} b_j = \pi(k_j) \] \[ \forall j.~ \mbox{if~} \tau(b_0\dots b_{j-1}) = \query k_j \mbox{~then~} b_j = \pi(k_j) \]
}% }%
This path will terminate at some answer node $b_0 b_1 \dots b_{r-1}$ of $\tree$, This path will terminate at some answer node $b_0 b_1 \dots b_{r-1}$ of $\tree$,
@@ -16421,10 +16428,10 @@ $P\,Q \reducesto^\ast \Return\;b$ where $b = \tru(P) \bullet \val{Q}$.
\end{proposition} \end{proposition}
\begin{proof} \begin{proof}
By interleaving the computation for the relevant path through $\tru(P)$ By interleaving the computation for the relevant path through
with computations for queries to $Q$, and appealing to the correspondence between $\tru(P)$ with computations for queries to $Q$, and appealing to the
the small-step reduction and abstract machine semantics. correspondence between the small-step reduction and abstract machine
We omit the routine details. semantics. We omit the routine details.
\end{proof} \end{proof}
It is thus natural to define the \emph{denotation} of an $n$-predicate It is thus natural to define the \emph{denotation} of an $n$-predicate
@@ -16446,8 +16453,9 @@ decision tree ($bs \mapsto \tree(bs).1$) is so.
An $n$-predicate $P$ is $n$-standard if $\tr(P)$ is $n$-standard. An $n$-predicate $P$ is $n$-standard if $\tr(P)$ is $n$-standard.
\end{definition} \end{definition}
Clearly, in an $n$-standard tree, each of the $n$ queries $\query 0,\dots, \query(n-1)$ Clearly, in an $n$-standard tree, each of the $n$ queries
appears exactly once on the path to any leaf, and there are $2^n$ leaves, all of them answer nodes. $\query 0,\dots, \query(n-1)$ appears exactly once on the path to any
leaf, and there are $2^n$ leaves, all of them answer nodes.
\subsection{Specification of counting programs} \subsection{Specification of counting programs}
\label{sec:counting} \label{sec:counting}
@@ -16467,31 +16475,32 @@ This definition gives us the flexibility to talk about counting
programs that operate on various classes of predicates, allowing us to programs that operate on various classes of predicates, allowing us to
state our results in their strongest natural form. On the positive state our results in their strongest natural form. On the positive
side, we shall shortly see that there is a single `efficient' program side, we shall shortly see that there is a single `efficient' program
in $\HCalc$ that correctly counts all $n$-standard $\lambda_h$ in $\HPCF$ that correctly counts all $n$-standard $\HPCF$
predicates for every $n$; in Section~\ref{sec:beyond} we improve this predicates for every $n$; in Section~\ref{sec:beyond} we improve this
to one that correctly counts \emph{all} $n$-predicates of $\lambda_h$. to one that correctly counts \emph{all} $n$-predicates of $\HPCF$.
On the negative side, we shall show that an $n$-indexed family of On the negative side, we shall show that an $n$-indexed family of
counting programs written in $\BCalc$, even if only required to work counting programs written in $\BPCF$, even if only required to work
correctly on $n$-standard $\lambda_b$ predicates, can never compete correctly on $n$-standard $\lambda_b$ predicates, can never compete
with our $\HCalc$ program for asymptotic efficiency even in the most with our $\HPCF$ program for asymptotic efficiency even in the most
favourable cases. favourable cases.
\subsection{Efficient generic count with effects} \subsection{Efficient generic count with effects}
\label{sec:effectful-counting} \label{sec:effectful-counting}
We now present the simplest version of our effectful implementation of Now we are ready to implement a generic count function using effect
counting: one that works on $n$-standard predicates. handlers. In fact, the implementation is so generic that it works on
all $n$-standard predicates.
Our program uses a variation of the handler for The program uses a variation of the handler for nondeterministic
nondeterministic computation that we gave in computation from Section~\ref{sec:tiny-unix-time}. The main idea is
Section~\ref{sec:handlers-primer}. to implement points as nondeterministic computations using the
The main idea is to implement points as `nondeterministic computations' $\Branch$ operation such that the handler may respond to every query
using the $\Branch$ operation such that the handler may respond to every query twice, twice, by invoking the provided resumption with $\True$ and
by invoking the provided resumption with $\True$ and subsequently $\False$. subsequently $\False$. The key insight is that the resumption
The key insight is that the resumption restarts computation at the invocation restarts computation at the invocation site of $\Branch$, which means
site of $\Branch$, which means that prior computation need not be repeated. that prior computation need not be repeated. In other words, the
In other words, the resumption ensures that common portions of computations resumption ensures that common portions of computations prior to any
prior to any query are shared between both branches. query are shared between both branches.
We assert that $\Branch : \One \to \Bool \in \Sigma$ is a We assert that $\Branch : \One \to \Bool \in \Sigma$ is a
distinguished operation that may not be handled in the definition of distinguished operation that may not be handled in the definition of
@@ -16526,7 +16535,7 @@ single solution, whilst $\Branch$ is interpreted by alternately
supplying $\True$ and $\False$ to the resumption and summing the supplying $\True$ and $\False$ to the resumption and summing the
results. The sharing enabled by the use of the resumption is exactly results. The sharing enabled by the use of the resumption is exactly
the `magic' we need to make it possible to implement generic count the `magic' we need to make it possible to implement generic count
more efficiently in $\HCalc$ than in $\BCalc$. more efficiently in $\HPCF$ than in $\BPCF$.
% %
A curious feature of $\ECount$ is that it works for all $n$-standard A curious feature of $\ECount$ is that it works for all $n$-standard
predicates without having to know the value of $n$. This is because predicates without having to know the value of $n$. This is because
@@ -16537,7 +16546,7 @@ We may now articulate the crucial correctness and efficiency
properties of $\ECount$. properties of $\ECount$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:complexity-effectful-counting} \begin{theorem}\label{thm:complexity-effectful-counting}
The following hold for any $n \in \N$ and any $n$-standard predicate $P$ of $\HCalc$: The following hold for any $n \in \N$ and any $n$-standard predicate $P$ of $\HPCF$:
% %
\begin{enumerate} \begin{enumerate}
\item $\ECount$ correctly counts $P$. \item $\ECount$ correctly counts $P$.
@@ -16886,11 +16895,13 @@ be performed `in turn' but might be nested in some complex way).
{ {
\begin{mathpar} \begin{mathpar}
\begin{eqs} \begin{eqs}
Q[P]~k & \reducesto^\ast & \EC_0[P~Q_0[P], P] ~\reducesto^\ast~ \EC_0[\Return\;b_0, P] Q[P]~k & \reducesto^\ast & \EC_0[P~Q_0[P], P] ~\reducesto^\ast \EC_0[\Return\;b_0, P]
~\reducesto^\ast~ \EC_1[P~Q_1[P], P] ~\reducesto^\ast~ \EC_1[\Return\;b_1, P] \\ \reducesto^\ast \EC_1[P~Q_1[P], P]\\
& \reducesto^\ast & \dots &\reducesto^\ast & \EC_1[\Return\;b_1, P]
~\reducesto^\ast~ \EC_{r-1}[P~Q_{r-1}[P], P] ~\reducesto^\ast~ \EC_{r-1}[\Return\;b_{r-1}, P] \reducesto^\ast \dots
~\reducesto~ \Return\;b \reducesto^\ast \EC_{r-1}[P~Q_{r-1}[P], P]\\
&\reducesto^\ast& \EC_{r-1}[\Return\;b_{r-1}, P]
\reducesto~ \Return\;b
\end{eqs} \end{eqs}
\end{mathpar} \end{mathpar}
}% }%
@@ -16910,11 +16921,13 @@ be performed `in turn' but might be nested in some complex way).
{ {
\begin{mathpar} \begin{mathpar}
\begin{eqs} \begin{eqs}
Q[P']~k & \reducesto^\ast & \EC_0[P'~Q_0[P'], P'] ~\reducesto^\ast~ \EC_0[\Return\;b_0, P'] Q[P']~k & \reducesto^\ast & \EC_0[P'~Q_0[P'], P'] \reducesto^\ast~ \EC_0[\Return\;b_0, P']
~\reducesto^\ast~ \EC_1[P'~Q_1[P'], P'] ~\reducesto^\ast~ \EC_1[\Return\;b_1, P'] \\ \reducesto^\ast \EC_1[P'~Q_1[P'], P']\\
& \reducesto^\ast & \dots & \reducesto^\ast & \EC_1[\Return\;b_1, P']
~\reducesto^\ast~ \EC_{r-1}[P'~Q_{r-1}[P'], P'] ~\reducesto^\ast~ \EC_{r-1}[\Return\;b_{r-1}, P'] \reducesto^\ast \dots
~\reducesto~ \Return\;b \reducesto^\ast \EC_{r-1}[P'~Q_{r-1}[P'], P']\\
&\reducesto^\ast & \EC_{r-1}[\Return\;b_{r-1}, P']
\reducesto \Return\;b
\end{eqs} \end{eqs}
\end{mathpar} \end{mathpar}
}% }%
@@ -17116,19 +17129,17 @@ to support repeated queries as follows.
\Return\; x &\mapsto& \lambda s. \If\; x\; \Then\; 1 \;\Else\; 0 \\ \Return\; x &\mapsto& \lambda s. \If\; x\; \Then\; 1 \;\Else\; 0 \\
\OpCase{\Branch}{i}{r} &\mapsto& \OpCase{\Branch}{i}{r} &\mapsto&
\ba[t]{@{}l}\lambda s. \ba[t]{@{}l}\lambda s.
\ba[t]{@{}l}
\Case\; \dec{lookup}_n~i~s\; \{\\ \Case\; \dec{lookup}_n~i~s\; \{\\
\quad\ba[t]{@{~}l@{~}c@{~}l} \ba[t]{@{~}l@{~}c@{~}l}
\Inl\,\Unit &\mapsto& \Inl\,\Unit &\mapsto&
\ba[t]{@{}l} \ba[t]{@{}l}
\Let\;x_\True \revto r~\True~(\dec{add}_n~\Record{i, \True}~s)\; \In\\ \Let\;x_\True \revto r~\True~(\dec{add}_n\,\Record{i, \True}\,s)\; \In\\
\Let\;x_\False \revto r~\False~(\dec{add}_n~\Record{i, \False}~s)\; \In\\ \Let\;x_\False \revto r~\False~(\dec{add}_n\,\Record{i, \False}\,s)\; \In\\
x_\True + x_\False; \\ x_\True + x_\False; \\
\ea\\ \ea\\
\Inr~x &\mapsto& r~x~s\; \} \\ \Inr~x &\mapsto& r~x~s\; \} \\
\ea \\ \ea \\
\ea \\ \ea \\
\ea \\
\ea\\ \ea\\
\In\;h~\dec{empty}_n \\ \In\;h~\dec{empty}_n \\
\el \\ \el \\
@@ -17736,22 +17747,17 @@ at least $n2^n$ steps in the overall reduction sequence.
\newcommand{\tablethree} \newcommand{\tablethree}
{\begin{table*} {\begin{table*}
\footnotesize \centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}| l | r@{\,} | r@{\,} | r@{\,} |@{\,}| r@{\,} | r@{\,} | r@{\,} |@{\,}| r@{\,} |@{\,}| r@{\,} | r@{\,} | r@{\,} |@{\,}| r@{\,} | r@{\,} | r@{\,} | r@{\,} | r@{\,} |@{}} \begin{tabular}{@{} | l | r@{\,} | r@{\,} | r@{\,} | @{\,} | r@{\,} | r@{\,} | r@{\,} |}
\cline{2-16} \cline{2-7}
\multicolumn{1}{l |}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l |}{} &
\multicolumn{6}{@{}c@{} |@{\,}|}{\textbf{Queens}} & \multicolumn{6}{@{}c@{} |@{\,}|}{\textbf{Queens}}
\multicolumn{9}{@{}c@{} |}{\textbf{Integration}} \\\cline{2-7}
\\\cline{2-16}
\multicolumn{1}{c |}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c |}{} &
%% Queens subheadings %% Queens subheadings
\multicolumn{3}{| @{}c@{} |@{\,}|}{\textbf{First solution}} & \multicolumn{3}{| @{}c@{} |@{\,}|}{\textbf{First solution}} &
\multicolumn{3}{| @{}c@{} |@{\,}|}{\textbf{All solutions}} & \multicolumn{3}{| @{}c@{} |@{\,}|}{\textbf{All solutions}}
%% Integration subheadings \\\cline{2-7}
\multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{} |@{\,}|}{\textbf{Id}} &
\multicolumn{3}{ @{}c@{} |@{\,}|}{\textbf{Squaring}} &
\multicolumn{5}{ @{}c@{} |}{\textbf{Logistic}}
\\\cline{2-16}
\multicolumn{1}{c |}{\emph{Parameter\!\!}} & \multicolumn{1}{c |}{\emph{Parameter\!\!}} &
%% Queens parameters. %% Queens parameters.
@@ -17762,7 +17768,85 @@ at least $n2^n$ steps in the overall reduction sequence.
%%% all solutions %%% all solutions
\multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{} |}{$8$} & \multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{} |}{$8$} &
\multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{} |}{$10$} & \multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{} |}{$10$} &
\multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{} |@{\,}|}{$12$} & \multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{} |@{\,}|}{$12$}
\\\hline
%% Results: \Naive.
\Naive &
%%% Queens.
$\tooslow$ &
$\tooslow$ &
$\tooslow$ &
$0.49$ &
$\tooslow$ &
$\tooslow$
\\\hline
%% Results: Berger.
Berger &
%%% Queens.
$0.62$ &
$0.64$ &
$\tooslow$ &
$0.73$ &
$0.65$ &
$0.68$
\\\hline
%% Results: Modulus.
Pruned &
%%% Queens.
$0.70$ &
$0.68$ &
$0.71$ &
$0.74$ &
$0.70$ &
$0.71$
\\\hline
%% Results: Control.
Effectful &
%%% Queens.
$12.87$ &
$13.99$ &
$14.90$ &
$8.00$ &
$8.60$ &
$12.19$
\\\hline
%% Results: bespoke
Bespoke &
% $0.14$ &
% $0.14$ &
$0.56$ &
$0.56$ &
$0.56$ &
$0.69$ &
$0.63$ &
$0.59$
\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{MLton: $n$-Queens benchmark runtime relative to SML/NJ.}
\label{tbl:results-mlton-vs-smlnj-queens}
\end{table*}}
\newcommand{\tablemltonvssmlnjintegration}
{\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ @{} | l | r@{\,} | @{\,} | r@{\,} | r@{\,} | r@{\,} | @{\,} | r@{\,} | r@{\,} | r@{\,} | r@{\,} | r@{\,} | @{} }
\cline{2-10}
\multicolumn{1}{l |}{} &
\multicolumn{9}{@{}c@{} |}{\textbf{Integration}}
\\\cline{2-10}
\multicolumn{1}{c |}{} &
%% Integration subheadings
\multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{} |@{\,}|}{\textbf{Id}} &
\multicolumn{3}{ @{}c@{} |@{\,}|}{\textbf{Squaring}} &
\multicolumn{5}{ @{}c@{} |}{\textbf{Logistic}}
\\\cline{2-10}
\multicolumn{1}{c |}{\emph{Parameter\!\!}} &
%% Integration parameters. %% Integration parameters.
%%% Identity %%% Identity
\multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{} |@{\,}|}{$20$} & \multicolumn{1}{@{}c@{} |@{\,}|}{$20$} &
@@ -17780,13 +17864,6 @@ at least $n2^n$ steps in the overall reduction sequence.
%% Results: \Naive. %% Results: \Naive.
\Naive & \Naive &
%%% Queens.
$\tooslow$ &
$\tooslow$ &
$\tooslow$ &
$0.49$ &
$\tooslow$ &
$\tooslow$ &
%%% Integration. %%% Integration.
$0.55$ & $0.55$ &
$0.35$ & $0.35$ &
@@ -17801,13 +17878,6 @@ at least $n2^n$ steps in the overall reduction sequence.
%% Results: Berger. %% Results: Berger.
Berger & Berger &
%%% Queens.
$0.62$ &
$0.64$ &
$\tooslow$ &
$0.73$ &
$0.65$ &
$0.68$ &
%%% Integration. %%% Integration.
$0.41$ & $0.41$ &
$0.35$ & $0.35$ &
@@ -17822,13 +17892,6 @@ at least $n2^n$ steps in the overall reduction sequence.
%% Results: Modulus. %% Results: Modulus.
Pruned & Pruned &
%%% Queens.
$0.70$ &
$0.68$ &
$0.71$ &
$0.74$ &
$0.70$ &
$0.71$ &
%%% Integration. %%% Integration.
$0.34$ & $0.34$ &
$0.36$ & $0.36$ &
@@ -17843,13 +17906,6 @@ at least $n2^n$ steps in the overall reduction sequence.
%% Results: Control. %% Results: Control.
Effectful & Effectful &
%%% Queens.
$12.87$ &
$13.99$ &
$14.90$ &
$8.00$ &
$8.60$ &
$12.19$ &
%%% Integration. %%% Integration.
$4.93$ & $4.93$ &
$3.53$ & $3.53$ &
@@ -17860,46 +17916,37 @@ at least $n2^n$ steps in the overall reduction sequence.
$2.62$ & $2.62$ &
$2.46$ & $2.46$ &
$2.37$ $2.37$
\\\cline{1-16} \\\hline
%% Results: bespoke
Bespoke &
% $0.14$ &
% $0.14$ &
$0.56$ &
$0.56$ &
$0.56$ &
$0.69$ &
$0.63$ &
$0.59$ &
\multicolumn{9}{l}{}
\\\cline{1-7}
\end{tabular} \end{tabular}
\caption{MLton: runtime relative to SML/NJ.} \caption{MLton: integration benchmarks runtime relative to SML/NJ.}
\label{tbl:results-mlton-vs-smlnj} \label{tbl:results-mlton-vs-smlnj-integration}
\end{table*}} \end{table*}}
\tableone \tableone
\tablesmlnjintegration \tablesmlnjintegration
\tabletwo \tabletwo
\tablemltonintegration \tablemltonintegration
\tablethree
\tablemltonvssmlnjintegration
%% %%
%% Experiments %% Experiments
%% %%
\section{Experiments} \section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments} \label{sec:experiments}
The theoretical efficiency gap between realisations of $\BCalc$ and The theoretical efficiency gap between realisations of $\BPCF$ and
$\HCalc$ manifests in practice. We observe it empirically on $\HPCF$ manifests in practice. We observe it empirically on
instantiations of $n$-queens and exact real number integration, which instantiations of $n$-queens and exact real number integration, which
can be cast as generic search. Table~\ref{tbl:results} shows the can be cast as generic search. Tables~\ref{tbl:results-smlnj-queens}
speedup of using an effectful implementation of generic search over and \ref{tbl:results-smlnj-integration} show the speedup of using an
various pure implementations. We discuss the benchmarks and results in effectful implementation of generic search over various pure
further detail below. implementations of the $n$-Queens and integration benchmarks,
respectively. We discuss the benchmarks and results in further detail
\setlength{\floatsep}{1.0ex} below.
\setlength{\textfloatsep}{1.0ex}
% \setlength{\floatsep}{1.0ex}
% \setlength{\textfloatsep}{1.0ex}
\paragraph{Methodology} \paragraph{Methodology}
We evaluated an effectful implementation of generic search against We evaluated an effectful implementation of generic search against
@@ -17964,20 +18011,21 @@ call/cc by copying the stack.
% %
We repeated our experiments using MLton 20180207. We repeated our experiments using MLton 20180207.
% %
Table~\ref{tbl:results-mlton} shows the results. The effectful Tables~\ref{tbl:results-mlton-queens} and
\ref{tbl:results-mlton-integration} show the results. The effectful
implementation performs much worse under MLton than SML/NJ, being implementation performs much worse under MLton than SML/NJ, being
surpassed in nearly every case by the pruned search procedure and in surpassed in nearly every case by the pruned search procedure and in
some cases by the Berger search procedure. some cases by the Berger search procedure.
% %
Table~\ref{tbl:results-mlton-vs-smlnj} summarises the runtime of MLton Tables~\ref{tbl:results-mlton-vs-smlnj-queens} and
relative to SML/NJ. Berger, Pruned, and Bespoke run between 1 and 3 \ref{tbl:results-mlton-vs-smlnj-integration} summarise the runtime of
times as fast with MLton compared to SML/NJ. MLton relative to SML/NJ for both benchmarks. Berger, Pruned, and
Bespoke run between 1 and 3 times as fast with MLton compared to
SML/NJ.
% %
However, the effectful implementation runs between 2 and 14 times as However, the effectful implementation runs between 2 and 14 times as
fast with SML/NJ compared with MLton. fast with SML/NJ compared with MLton.
\tablethree
\section{Related work} \section{Related work}
\part{Conclusions} \part{Conclusions}