You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
Tree-based models have proven to be an effective solution for web ranking as well as other problems in diverse domains. This paper focuses on optimizing the runtime performance of applying such models to make predictions, given an already-trained model. Although exceedingly simple conceptually, most implementations of tree-based models do not efficiently utilize modern superscalar processor architectures. By laying out data structures in memory in a more cache-conscious fashion, removing branches from the execution flow using a technique called predication, and micro-batching predictions using a technique called vectorization, we are able to better exploit modern processor architectures and significantly improve the speed of tree-based models over hard-coded if-else blocks. Our work contributes to the exploration of architecture-conscious runtime implementations of machine learning algorithms.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: Recent high-performance processors employ sophisticated techniques to overlap and simultaneously execute multiple computation and memory operations. Intuitively, these techniques should help database applications, which are becoming increasingly compute and memory bound. Unfortunately, recent studies report that faster processors do not improve database system performance to the same extent as scientific workloads. Recent work on database systems focusing on minimizing memory latencies, such as cache-conscious algorithms for sorting and data placement, is one step toward addressing this problem. However, to best design high performance DBMSs we must carefully evaluate and understand the processor and memory behavior of commercial DBMSs on today’s hardware platforms. In this paper we answer the question “Where does time go when a database system is executed on a modern computer platform?” We examine four commercial DBMSs running on an Intel Xeon and NT 4.0. We introduce a framework for analyzing query execution time on a DBMS running on a server with a modern processor and memory architecture. To focus on processor and memory interactions and exclude effects from the I O subsystem, we use a memory resident database. Using simple queries we find that database developers should (a) optimize data placement for the second level of data cache, and not the first, (b) optimize instruction placement to reduce first-level instruction cache stalls, but (c) not expect the overall execution time to decrease significantly without addressing stalls related to subtle implementation issues (e.g., branch prediction).

[2]: We propose a mechanism in which the compiler generates code that can be executed either as predicated code or nonpredicated code. The compiler-generated code is the same as predicated code, except the predicated conditional branches are not removed - they are left intact in the program code. These conditional branches are called wish branches. The goal of wish branches is to use predicated execution for hard-to-predict dynamic branches, and branch prediction for easy-to-predict dynamic branches, thereby obtaining the best of both worlds. Wish loops, one class of wish branches, use predication to reduce the misprediction penalty for hard-to-predict backward (loop) branches

[3]:
The impact of data and control hazards can be substantial: an influential paper in 1999 concluded that in commercial RDBMSes at the time, almost half of the execution time is spent on stalls [1] . Of course, this was before the community was aware of the issue, and so systems have become much more efficient since then. Which is worse'', data or control hazards? Not surprisingly, the answer is, it depends. However, with a technique called predication [3] [2] , which we explore in our work, it is possible to convert control dependencies into data dependencies (see ). Whether predication is worthwhile, and under what circumstances, remains an empirical question.