COMPARISON OF PARALLEL PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZERS FOR GRAPHICAL PROCESSING UNITS AND MULTICORE PROCESSORS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a parallel implementation of the particle swarm optimization (PSO) on graphical processing units (GPU) using CUDA. By fully utilizing the processing power of graphic processors, our implementation (CUDA-PSO) provides a speedup of 167× compared to a sequential implementation on CPU. This speedup is significantly superior to what has been reported in recent papers and is achieved by four optimizations we made to better adapt the parallel algorithm to the specific architecture of the NVIDIA GPU. However, because today's personal computers are usually equipped with a multicore CPU, it may be unfair to compare our CUDA implementation to a sequential one. For this reason, we implemented a parallel PSO for multicore CPUs using MPI (MPI-PSO) and compared its performance against our CUDA-PSO. The execution time of our CUDA-PSO remains 15.8× faster than our MPI-PSO which ran on a high-end 12-core workstation. Moreover, we show with statistical significance that the results obtained using our CUDA-PSO are of equal quality as the results obtained by the sequential PSO or the MPI-PSO. Finally, we use our parallel PSO for real-time harmonic minimization of multilevel power inverters with 20 DC sources while considering the first 100 harmonics and show that our CUDA-PSO is 294× faster than the sequential PSO and 32.5× faster than our parallel MPI-PSO.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it