Hubbry Logo
DataflowDataflowMain
Open search
Dataflow
Community hub
Dataflow
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Dataflow
Dataflow
Dataflow
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In computing, dataflow is a broad concept, which has various meanings depending on the application and context. In the context of software architecture, data flow relates to stream processing or reactive programming.

Software architecture

[edit]

Dataflow computing is a software paradigm based on the idea of representing computations as a directed graph, where nodes are computations and data flow along the edges.[1] Dataflow can also be called stream processing or reactive programming.[2]

There have been multiple data-flow/stream processing languages of various forms (see Stream processing). Data-flow hardware (see Dataflow architecture) is an alternative to the classic von Neumann architecture. The most obvious example of data-flow programming is the subset known as reactive programming with spreadsheets. As a user enters new values, they are instantly transmitted to the next logical "actor" or formula for calculation.

Distributed data flows have also been proposed as a programming abstraction that captures the dynamics of distributed multi-protocols. The data-centric perspective characteristic of data flow programming promotes high-level functional specifications and simplifies formal reasoning about system components.

Hardware architecture

[edit]
Main article: Dataflow architecture

Hardware architectures for dataflow was a major topic in computer architecture research in the 1970s and early 1980s. Jack Dennis of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) pioneered the field of static dataflow architectures. Designs that use conventional memory addresses as data dependency tags are called static dataflow machines. These machines did not allow multiple instances of the same routines to be executed simultaneously because the simple tags could not differentiate between them. Designs that use content-addressable memory are called dynamic dataflow machines by Arvind. They use tags in memory to facilitate parallelism. Data flows around the computer through the components of the computer. It gets entered from the input devices and can leave through output devices (printer etc.). An example for a hardware structure like in a dataflow machine can be found in analog computers or more precisely differential analyzers.

Main article: Spatial architecture

In hardware accelerators composed of many processing elements that collectively coordinate to parallelize a compute kernel, dataflow refers to the pattern in which data is transferred between processing elements to satisfy data dependencies and complete the computation. These architectures inherit many of the concepts of dataflow architectures and apply them to more specialized workloads, such as AI acceleration. However, unlike dataflow architectures, the computation is not actively driven by data dependencies, rather, the simple data dependencies of the accelerated kernel are used to program the whole architecture prior to its execution.[3]

Concurrency

[edit]

A dataflow network is a network of concurrently executing processes or automata that can communicate by sending data over channels (see message passing.)

In Kahn process networks, named after Gilles Kahn, the processes are determinate. This implies that each determinate process computes a continuous function from input streams to output streams, and that a network of determinate processes is itself determinate, thus computing a continuous function. This implies that the behavior of such networks can be described by a set of recursive equations, which can be solved using fixed point theory. The movement and transformation of the data is represented by a series of shapes and lines.

Other meanings

[edit]

Dataflow can also refer to:

  • Power BI Dataflow, a Power Query implementation in the cloud used for transforming source data into cleansed Power BI Datasets to be used by Power BI report developers through the Microsoft Dataverse (formerly called Microsoft Common Data Service).
  • Google Cloud Dataflow, a fully managed service for executing Apache Beam pipelines within the Google Cloud Platform ecosystem.

See also

[edit]

The dictionary definition of dataflow at Wiktionary

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Dataflow

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Dataflow is a and in which programs are represented as directed graphs, with nodes denoting operations and edges indicating data dependencies, such that execution proceeds asynchronously as soon as all required input data becomes available, inherently exposing parallelism without a sequential like a . This data-driven approach contrasts with traditional von Neumann architectures by emphasizing token flow—discrete data packets that trigger computations—and enforcing principles such as single assignment (immutable data values) and locality of effects (no side effects beyond explicit outputs), which promote and ease of parallelization. Originating in the early 1970s as a response to the limitations of sequential for exploiting parallelism, dataflow concepts were pioneered by researchers like Jack Dennis at MIT, who introduced dataflow graphs in 1974 to model computations independent of timing. Early theoretical foundations, including process networks (1974) for concurrent systems and single-assignment languages like Lucid (1977), laid the groundwork for both software and hardware realizations. By the late 1970s and 1980s, dataflow inspired languages such as Id (1978) for fine-grained parallelism and VAL (1979) for vector processing, alongside experimental architectures like static dataflow machines (e.g., MIT's tagged-token model) and dynamic variants that allowed runtime graph reconfiguration to handle control structures like loops. Dataflow architectures, which implement this in hardware, divide into static forms—where graphs are pre-allocated to processing elements for predictable execution—and dynamic forms, which use with tags for flexibility in managing nondeterminism and data structures like arrays via I-structures. Despite challenges such as overhead from fine-grained operations leading to a decline in pure hardware pursuits by the , the paradigm evolved into hybrid models blending dataflow with imperative elements, as seen in systems like and P-RISC for multithreaded computing. In modern applications, dataflow underpins domains requiring reactivity and concurrency, including via synchronous dataflow (SDF) models like Lustre (1980s) for real-time control systems, visual programming environments such as (1980s onward) for engineering simulations, and in frameworks like . Recent advances as of 2025 incorporate dataflow into via computational graphs in frameworks such as and , alongside specialized dataflow processors for AI inference (market valued at USD 5.2 billion in 2024), highlighting its enduring relevance in exploiting massive parallelism amid growing computational demands.

Core Concepts

Definition and Principles

Dataflow is a programming and execution model in which proceeds based on the availability and movement of data tokens through a network, rather than following explicit sequences of control instructions. In this paradigm, programs are represented as directed graphs where nodes perform operations only when their required input data is ready, enabling execution to be driven by data dependencies rather than a central . This contrasts sharply with traditional control-flow models, such as the , where instructions are executed sequentially under the direction of control signals, potentially leading to idle processors waiting for data; in dataflow, the order of execution emerges dynamically from data readiness, inherently exposing opportunities for parallelism without explicit synchronization. Key principles of dataflow include demand-driven execution, where computations are initiated only as needed by downstream dependencies; implicit parallelism derived from the graph structure, as independent branches can proceed concurrently without interference; and, in pure dataflow formulations, the absence of side effects to ensure that operations depend solely on inputs and produce deterministic outputs. Token matching and firing rules govern execution: a node becomes enabled (or "fires") precisely when tokens have arrived on all its input and no tokens remain on its output , at which point input tokens are consumed and new output tokens are generated. This data-driven firing mechanism eliminates the need for global and supports fine-grained concurrency limited only by data dependencies. The core components of a dataflow system are actors (or nodes), which represent computational units such as operators or functions; arcs (or edges), which serve as unidirectional channels for transmitting data between nodes; and tokens, which are indivisible packets carrying data values along the arcs. In a dataflow network, token flow adheres to the principle that a node vv with function ff fires upon receipt of all input tokens t1,t2,…,tnt_1, t_2, \dots, t_n, producing output tokens f(t1,t2,…,tn)f(t_1, t_2, \dots, t_n) dispatched along the corresponding output arcs: If ∣{ti}∣=n (all inputs present) and output arcs empty,then fire: consume {ti}, generate oj=f({ti}) for each output arc j.\begin{align*} &\text{If } |\{t_i\}| = n \text{ (all inputs present)} \text{ and output arcs empty,} \\ &\text{then fire: consume } \{t_i\}, \text{ generate } o_j = f(\{t_i\}) \text{ for each output arc } j. \end{align*} This formulation ensures reproducible execution based on data availability. A simple illustrative example is a dataflow graph for a basic addition operation: two input arcs converge on an adder node (actor), each carrying a numeric token (e.g., 3 and 5); the node fires only when both tokens arrive, consuming them and producing a single output token (8) on the outgoing arc. This graph visually represents the dependency: no execution occurs until data is ready, contrasting with control-flow where the addition might be scheduled regardless of operand availability.

History and Development

The origins of dataflow computing trace back to the late , when Jack Dennis at MIT began exploring alternatives to the von Neumann model, proposing static dataflow architectures to enable fine-grained parallelism without centralized control. Building on earlier work in asynchronous digital logic and graph-based computation, Dennis formalized dataflow schemas in 1972 as a way to represent programs as directed graphs where operations execute upon data availability. In the 1970s, the field advanced with contributions from Arvind, who developed dynamic dataflow concepts at MIT, emphasizing execution driven by tagged tokens to handle context-dependent parallelism. This period also saw the launch of the Manchester Data Flow Machine project in the UK, which aimed to implement data-driven computation in hardware and demonstrated early prototypes by the late 1970s. A key milestone was the 1975 publication of Dennis's "First Version of a Data Flow Procedure Language," which outlined a foundational language for expressing dataflow programs and influenced subsequent designs. These ideas extended to functional programming languages, notably Id—developed by Arvind for dynamic dataflow execution—and Lucid, introduced by Wadge and Ashcroft as a nonprocedural language supporting iteration through data dependencies. The 1980s brought refinements like MIT's Tagged-Token Dataflow Architecture (TTDA), which used tokens with identifiers to enable efficient dynamic scheduling and avoid race conditions in multiprocessor environments. By the , research evolved toward hybrid models blending dataflow's parallelism with von Neumann's sequential efficiency, addressing limitations in pure dataflow such as overhead from fine-grained operations. Notable projects included MIT's machine, an explicit token-store architecture operational in the early 1990s, which supported multithreaded execution for scientific and symbolic computing using the Id language. This era marked a shift to more practical implementations, with hybrids gaining traction for balancing and flexibility. In the 2010s, open-source tools revitalized dataflow concepts for software ecosystems, such as for managing data ingestion and processing flows, enabling scalable integration in distributed systems. By the 2020s, dataflow principles integrated deeply with GPU computing and AI workflows, exemplified by reconfigurable dataflow architectures like those in SambaNova systems, which optimize tensor operations and parallel patterns for acceleration. Recent advancements also explore dataflow-inspired approaches in simulations, including FPGA-based data-flow engines for synthesizing optimized quantum circuits and trace-based reconstruction of circuit dataflows in surface codes, enhancing scalability for variational quantum algorithms.

Dataflow in Computing Architectures

Software Architectures

Dataflow software architectures leverage the paradigm's emphasis on explicit data dependencies and token flow to enable concurrent execution without explicit , facilitating scalable and modular program design. In these architectures, computations are modeled as directed graphs where nodes represent operations and edges denote dependencies, allowing automatic parallelism where availability dictates execution order. Pure dataflow programming languages emerged in the and as foundational implementations of this , with Lucid serving as an early precursor through its nonprocedural, iteration-based model that influenced subsequent designs. The Id language, developed in the , exemplified a high-level, nondeterministic dataflow approach, enabling fine-grained parallelism by matching operators to available tokens without side effects. Similarly, VAL (Value), introduced around the same period, focused on applicative, single-assignment semantics to support vector processing and iterative algorithms on dataflow machines, though it prioritized static scheduling for predictability. Modern dataflow languages build on these foundations for distributed environments; , released in 2016, provides a unified model for batch and pipelines, abstracting data transformations across runners like Cloud Dataflow to handle unbounded datasets efficiently. Reactive programming models extend dataflow principles to handle asynchronous event streams, treating data as observable sequences that propagate changes automatically. RxJS, a JavaScript library from the 2010s, implements this via observables and operators for composing streams, enabling declarative handling of user interactions and API responses in web applications. Actor-based systems like Akka, introduced in 2009 for Scala and Java, adapt dataflow by modeling components as actors that communicate via immutable messages, ensuring location transparency and fault tolerance in distributed applications while implicitly managing data dependencies. Implementation strategies in dataflow software distinguish between static and dynamic graph representations: static graphs precompute schedules at for predictable execution but limit flexibility for variable data rates, whereas dynamic graphs enable runtime restructuring to accommodate data-dependent behaviors, at the cost of increased overhead. Garbage collection in dataflow environments must address token lifecycle management, as unused tokens and graph nodes can accumulate; efficient schemes, such as integrated with dataflow semantics, reclaim resources immediately upon dependency resolution to minimize memory pressure in concurrent settings. Integration with occurs through libraries like , which since 2015 has used dataflow graphs to define computational nodes and edges, allowing imperative Python code to construct graphs that execute in parallel across devices while maintaining OOP encapsulation. A representative example is , a graphical dataflow language developed in 1986, where programs are built by wiring virtual instruments (VIs) on a : data flows from output terminals to input terminals, triggering execution only when all inputs are available, as in a simple pipeline where a generator VI connects to a filter VI and then to a display VI, inherently parallelizing independent branches without locks. In big pipelines, Apache Spark's Resilient Distributed Datasets (RDDs), introduced in 2011, incorporate dataflow undertones through and lineage graphs, yielding performance gains like up to 20x speedup over Hadoop for iterative tasks by optimizing data locality and fault recovery. Challenges in dataflow software include the overhead of maintaining and traversing graph representations, which can introduce latency in dynamic scenarios due to frequent token matching and scheduling. Solutions such as just-in-time () compilation mitigate this by generating optimized for hot graph paths at runtime, reducing interpretation costs in frameworks like while preserving adaptability.

Hardware Architectures

Dataflow hardware architectures emerged in the as experimental efforts to realize the parallelism inherent in dataflow models directly in silicon, departing from the von Neumann paradigm by enabling instruction execution only upon data availability. Early designs distinguished between static and dynamic variants: static dataflow machines scheduled operations at to avoid runtime synchronization overhead, using to represent data dependencies across a graph of . In contrast, dynamic dataflow approaches, such as MIT's Tagged-Token Dataflow Architecture (TTDA), allowed runtime resolution of dependencies with tokens tagged with unique identifiers, enabling greater flexibility for irregular parallelism but introducing hardware for token matching and storage. Key prototypes exemplified these principles. The Manchester Data Flow Computer, operational since 1981, was the first hardware realization of a dynamic dataflow system, featuring a centralized packet memory and dynamic tagging for token synchronization across multiple processing elements, demonstrating feasibility for fine-grained parallelism in scientific applications. Similarly, the Louisiana Data Flow Computer project at the University of Southwestern Louisiana produced a simulator and architectural explorations by 1987, focusing on fault-tolerant dataflow models with distributed processing elements to handle asynchronous token flows. MIT's Monsoon, a 16-node dynamic dataflow multiprocessor prototype completed in 1993, implemented an explicit token-store mechanism where tokens resided in a centralized store until matching operands triggered firing, achieving peak performance of up to 100 MIPS per node in benchmarks like matrix multiplication and Livermore Loops. Contemporary hardware draws inspiration from these foundations, adapting dataflow principles for specialized domains. Dataflow-oriented ASICs implemented on FPGAs have been developed for tasks, such as dynamically reconfigurable architectures that map dataflow graphs to parallel pipelines, reducing latency in applications like image filtering by exploiting event-driven token routing. Integration of dataflow elements appears in multi-core processors; for instance, Intel's architecture in the early 2000s incorporated explicit and predication inspired by dataflow to enable compiler-controlled parallelism without runtime stalls. In the 2020s, neuromorphic chips like adaptations of IBM's TrueNorth employ asynchronous, spike-based dataflow communication between cores, mimicking neural event-driven for low-power AI , with tokens representing spikes routed via address-event representation to achieve beyond 1 million neurons. More recently, in October 2025, NextSilicon announced the Maverick-2, a multi-tier reconfigurable dataflow engine designed to compete with CPUs and GPUs in handling AI workloads through efficient dataflow . Central to these designs are token storage and matching units, which decouple computation from , eliminating von Neumann bottlenecks like centralized instruction fetch by allowing independent firing based on arrival. Performance in such systems is governed by throughput limited by the minimum arc capacity in the dataflow graph multiplied by the firing rate, as bottlenecks in token queuing constrain overall execution speed. Historical benchmarks, such as Monsoon's evaluations, highlight this, with node throughput scaling to 100 MIPS under balanced loads but degrading with uneven token distributions. These architectures offer advantages in exploiting fine-grained parallelism for data-intensive workloads, enabling automatic without locks or barriers, as seen in Manchester's handling irregular graphs efficiently. However, limitations include high hardware complexity for matching and storage units, leading to elevated costs and power consumption compared to conventional designs; for example, Monsoon's explicit token store required sophisticated , contributing to scalability challenges beyond dozens of nodes.

Dataflow and Concurrency

Concurrency Models

Dataflow concurrency models provide a theoretical foundation for parallel computation where execution proceeds based on the availability of data rather than explicit , enabling inherent parallelism while addressing challenges like and scheduling. A seminal model is the Kahn Process Network (KPN), introduced by Gilles Kahn in 1974, which describes a system of autonomous sequential processes communicating via unbounded FIFO queues with blocking reads to ensure deterministic behavior despite asynchronous execution. In contrast, the Dennis dataflow model, developed by Jack B. Dennis around the same period, emphasizes fine-grained, non-deterministic execution where actors fire upon data arrival without blocking, allowing multiple enabling tokens to trigger parallel computations but potentially leading to order-dependent outcomes in merging operations. Determinism in dataflow models is a key advantage, particularly in pure dataflow paradigms, where the output of a computation is independent of the scheduling order as long as data dependencies are respected; this holds because operators are applied functionally to available tokens, ensuring reproducible results for given inputs. However, merging operators, which combine streams from multiple sources, can introduce non-determinism if the order of token arrival influences the merge sequence, as seen in Dennis-style models where fair or unfair merging policies affect outcomes; to mitigate this, KPNs enforce blocking reads that serialize access and preserve determinism by treating channels as histories of events. Formal semantics for dataflow networks often rely on trace theory, where the behavior of a network is captured by the set of possible input-output trace pairs, representing sequences of events on communication channels. In denotational models, the semantics of a are defined using fixed-point theory: the network behavior is the least fixed point of the monotonic functions describing the processes over domains of stream histories, ensuring unique solutions for deterministic networks. This fixed-point semantics, rooted in , guarantees that output traces are uniquely determined by input histories, independent of execution order. Variations of dataflow models address specific concurrency needs, such as predictability in resource-constrained environments. Synchronous Dataflow (SDF), proposed by Edward A. Lee and David G. Messerschmitt in 1987, extends dataflow by specifying fixed token production and consumption rates per actor firing, enabling static scheduling and bounded memory analysis for periodic, real-time applications. Cyclo-static Dataflow (CSDF), introduced by G. Bilsen et al. in 1996, generalizes SDF to handle periodic but varying behaviors, where actors exhibit cyclic patterns in their rates over a period, allowing more expressive modeling of applications like while retaining analyzability through transformation to equivalent SDF graphs. Analysis techniques for dataflow concurrency include deadlock detection in KPNs, which uses dependency graphs to identify circular waits: construct a with nodes as and edges from a blocked to those it awaits data from via channels; a cycle in this graph indicates a potential deadlock, detectable via or similar algorithms, enabling preventive scheduling or resolution by prioritizing certain reads.

Applications in Parallel Computing

In parallel processing, dataflow principles enable efficient execution in multi-threaded systems by scheduling tasks based on data availability rather than fixed threads. Cilk, developed in the 1990s at MIT, employs a work-stealing scheduler that dynamically assigns ready tasks to idle processors, minimizing synchronization overheads in data-driven computations. This approach has demonstrated near-linear on multiprocessors for irregular workloads, such as recursive algorithms, by treating computations as dataflow graphs where operations fire upon input readiness. In GPU environments, dataflow execution models facilitate fine-grained parallelism in kernels by allowing operators to communicate asynchronously without explicit synchronization barriers. For instance, the framework introduces primitives for dynamic dataflow on GPUs, enabling and reducing memory traffic in workloads, achieving up to 1.5x over traditional static kernels on hardware. Distributed systems leverage dataflow for scalable, fault-tolerant processing in cloud pipelines. Google's FlumeJava, introduced in 2010, abstracts jobs into high-level dataflow graphs, automatically optimizing execution plans for fault recovery and resource allocation across clusters. Similarly, , originating from the Stratosphere project around 2011, implements exactly-once semantics through distributed snapshots in its dataflow engine, ensuring recovery from failures without in streaming applications. These mechanisms allow Flink to process petabyte-scale data with sub-second latencies, as checkpoints are taken asynchronously during normal operation. Dataflow architectures support complex case studies in scientific simulations and AI workflows. In weather modeling, parallel dataflow supercomputers process atmospheric equations by decomposing simulations into independent stream computations, limited only by inter-grid data dependencies, enabling efficient use of thousands of processors for global forecasts. For AI training, TensorFlow's 2016 distributed dataflow model represents neural network computations as graphs deployed across heterogeneous clusters, with automatic partitioning and fault-tolerant execution yielding linear scaling on up to 100 GPUs for image recognition tasks. Performance evaluations of dataflow in parallel environments often adapt to account for data dependencies, where SS is bounded by the serial fraction and dependency-induced overheads. In map-reduce pipelines, dataflow reduces the parallelizable fraction's limitations by pipelining dependent stages, achieving speedups approaching S=P1+f(P−1)S = \frac{P}{1 + f(P-1)}, with ff representing communication costs per processor PP; for low-dependency workloads like , this yields 8-10x gains on 16 nodes. Recent trends in the extend dataflow to for IoT, where dynamic dataflow platforms process sensor streams locally to minimize latency, as in Laminar, which supports serverless deployment across edge devices for real-time .

Dataflow in Other Domains

Dataflow Analysis in Compilers

Dataflow analysis in compilers is a static analysis technique that computes information about the flow of data through a program's to enable optimizations. It propagates facts about program states—such as variable values, definitions, or usages—across basic blocks, distinguishing between forward analyses (which propagate information in the direction of , like reaching definitions) and backward analyses (which propagate against the flow, like live variables). Reaching definitions determines the set of variable assignments that may reach a particular program point, while live variables identify variables that are used later and thus must retain their values. This analysis is foundational for exposing global data relationships without executing the program. The core algorithm for is the iterative dataflow framework, which repeatedly applies transfer functions to s until a fixed point is reached, ensuring convergence on monotone lattices. For forward analyses like reaching definitions, each BB has generation (Gen[BB]) and kill (Kill[BB]) sets: Gen[BB] contains definitions generated in BB, and Kill[BB] contains definitions overwritten in BB. The output facts after BB are computed as: Out[B]=Gen[B]∪(In[B]−Kill[B])\text{Out}[B] = \text{Gen}[B] \cup (\text{In}[B] - \text{Kill}[B]) where In[BB] is the union of Out[PP] over all predecessors PP of BB. Iteration proceeds from entry points until no changes occur, typically in worklist order for efficiency. For more expressive domains, lattice-based analysis via approximates concrete semantics using partially ordered lattices, enabling sound over-approximations for properties like pointer aliasing. These techniques underpin key optimizations, including constant propagation, which replaces variables with known constant values to simplify expressions and enable compile-time evaluation, and , which removes computations whose results are never used by identifying non-live code paths. In just-in-time compilers like , dataflow passes such as Sparse Conditional Constant Propagation (SCCP) apply these principles to intermediate representations for runtime optimization. Modern extensions include interprocedural analysis, which propagates dataflow facts across procedure calls using call graphs and summary functions to capture effects like parameter passing, improving precision over intraprocedural methods. Analyses vary by sensitivity: flow-sensitive variants track facts along specific control paths for higher accuracy but greater computational cost, while flow-insensitive variants aggregate facts across the entire program scope for scalability. In the 2020s, integrations have enhanced by using graph neural networks on program representations to predict or refine analysis results, such as in tools like PROGRAML that leverage dataflow graphs for optimization guidance.

Dataflow in Signal Processing and Networks

In , dataflow graphs represent the sequential and parallel flow of signals through computational blocks, enabling efficient modeling of (DSP) systems. These graphs gained prominence in the 1990s with tools like , which uses visual dataflow representations to simulate complex DSP algorithms such as filtering and transformation. Synchronous dataflow (SDF), a restricted dataflow model introduced in the late , is particularly suited for real-time audio and video processing due to its deterministic token production and consumption rates, allowing static scheduling that guarantees timing constraints. In applications, SDF variants like time-triggered static schedulable dataflows handle continuous streams in video encoding and audio mixing by minimizing buffer overflows through predictable execution. In communication networks, dataflow principles underpin , where data packets traverse switches as independent flows governed by routing rules rather than centralized control. (SDN), emerging in the , extends this by using flow tables to direct packet dataflows programmatically, decoupling control logic from hardware to optimize traffic in dynamic environments. modeling often treats networks as dataflow graphs, with nodes as switches and edges as buffered channels, facilitating analysis of congestion and throughput in large-scale systems like network-on-chip designs. Applications of dataflow extend to wireless sensor networks (WSNs), where dataflow algorithms optimize paths for aggregated sensor data, balancing and latency by treating data packets as flowing tokens through hierarchical topologies. In and emerging architectures during the 2020s, service-based architectures in core networks enable modular protocols for low-latency streaming and AI-driven traffic management under standards from , with standardization advancing as of mid-2025. A key consideration in these systems is buffer sizing to accommodate variable data rates; the buffer depth can be estimated as the product of the maximum burst rate and network latency, ensuring no during peak loads: Buffer depth=max⁡(burst rate)×latency\text{Buffer depth} = \max(\text{burst rate}) \times \text{latency} Tools such as MATLAB's Dataflow domain facilitate the design and simulation of these systems by enabling multithreaded execution of graphs, accelerating prototyping for multirate DSP applications. Standards like IEEE 1857.3-2023 define formats for advanced audio and video coding in streaming, including to ensure seamless transmission over IP networks. Challenges in asynchronous dataflows, common in heterogeneous and networks, include —variations in signal arrival times—and difficulties, which can degrade real-time performance by introducing misalignment in audio-visual or packet in WSNs. Mitigation often involves hybrid synchronous-asynchronous interfaces to bound while preserving flexibility.

References

  1. https://www.cs.tufts.edu/comp/150CMP/papers/dataflow-johnston-acm04.pdf
  2. https://ptolemy.berkeley.edu/publications/papers/99/dataflow/dataflow.pdf
  3. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1109/85.329757
  4. https://beam.apache.org/
  5. https://www.tensorflow.org/guide/intro_to_graphs
  6. https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/dataflow-ai-processor-market
  7. https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse548/11au/Dennis-Dataflow.pdf
  8. https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~markhill/restricted/ieeecomputer94_dataflow.pdf
  9. https://csg.csail.mit.edu/Dataflow/talks/DennisTalk.pdf
  10. https://courses.grainger.illinois.edu/CS533/sp2023/reading_list/p365-veen.pdf
  11. https://extremecomputingtraining.anl.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/96/2023/08/ATPESC-2023-Track-1-Talk-6-Monsalve-Diaz-Raskar-Dataflow-Architectures.pdf
  12. https://cartheur.com/Files/manchester-data-flow.pdf
  13. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/148889
  14. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/359636.359715
  15. https://csg.csail.mit.edu/pubs/memos/Memo-306/Memo-306.pdf
  16. https://nifi.apache.org/docs/nifi-docs/html/overview.html
  17. https://sambanova.ai/hubfs/23945802/SambaNova_Accelerated-Computing-with-a-Reconfigurable-Dataflow-Architecture_Whitepaper_English-1.pdf
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021999124000056
  19. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/nsdi12/nsdi12-final138.pdf
  20. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1109/TC.1980.1675474
  21. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/357153.357157
  22. https://research.google.com/pubs/archive/43864.pdf
  23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233755674_A_Survey_on_Reactive_Programming
  24. https://akka.io/blog/reactive-programming-versus-reactive-systems
  25. http://www.cs.ucf.edu/courses/cda5106/summer02/papers/dataFlow_small.pdf
  26. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.08695
  27. https://www.ni.com/en/support/documentation/supplemental/07/why-dataflow-programming-languages-are-ideal-for-programming-par.html
  28. https://web.ist.utl.pt/nuno.lopes/pubs/torchy-cc23-extended.pdf
  29. https://publications.csail.mit.edu/lcs/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TR-332.pdf
  30. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2465.2468
  31. https://csg.csail.mit.edu/pubs/memos/Memo-345/memo-345-3.pdf
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383762110000858
  33. https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~mckinley/papers/predication-micro-2006.pdf
  34. https://www.nextplatform.com/2025/10/22/nextsilicon-takes-aim-at-cpus-and-gpus-with-maverick-2-dataflow-engine/
  35. https://www.cs.tufts.edu/comp/150CMP/doc/kahn-semantics-parallel.pdf
  36. https://ptolemy.eecs.berkeley.edu/publications/papers/87/synchdataflow/synchdataflow.pdf
  37. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/485935
  38. https://liacs.leidenuniv.nl/assets/2010-15ErikJongsma.pdf
  39. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/209937.209958
  40. https://research.google/pubs/flumejava-easy-efficient-data-parallel-pipelines/
  41. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5009332
  42. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/osdi16/osdi16-abadi.pdf
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/amdahls-law
  44. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3592533.3592805
  45. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/360018.360025
  46. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/512950.512973
  47. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/103135.103136
  48. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/178243.178256
  49. https://llvm.org/docs/Passes.html#sccp-sparse-conditional-constant-propagation
  50. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/173262.155099
  51. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/277650.277668
  52. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v139/cummins21a/cummins21a.pdf
  53. https://www.mathworks.com/help/dsp/ug/model-multirate-systems-using-the-dataflow-subsystem.html
  54. https://bears.ece.ucsb.edu/class/ece253/papers/lee_parks_ieee95.pdf
  55. https://amatria.in/pubs/parumi_mmcn09.pdf
  56. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-32615-8_14
  57. http://yuba.stanford.edu/~jpettit/papers/evolution-sdn-computer14.pdf
  58. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2432516.2432518
  59. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1064230708020159
  60. https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2025/6/blog-6g-standardization-technology-step-to-publish
  61. https://www.mathworks.com/help/dsp/ug/dataflow-domains.html
  62. https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/1857.3/10645/
  63. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3379337.3415833
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168010223002201
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.