Design & Implementation of Parallel Linear GP for the IBM Cell Processor
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
We present two different single-core parallel SIMD linear genetic programming (LGP) systems for the IBM Cell Processor on the Playstation3. Our algorithms harness their computational power from the parallel capabilities of the Cell Processor. We implement two evolutionary algorithms and look at the classical problem of symbolic regression of functions. The first LGP generates a single offspring and selection from the population occurs randomly. The second algorithm generates two offspring and selection from the population is performed using k-tournament with k = 2. Mutation occurs at macro and micro levels. Both SIMD instructions and register operands are subject to mutation. We use a static population of 648 individuals due to memory and data transfer restrictions and, experiments are constrained to 300 seconds of computational time. Our results indicate that both EAs perform equally well though the first algorithm is faster and outperforms the 2nd algorithm in some cases. We speculate that the speed at which generations are iterated through is significantly greater than that of a typical tree-based GP and sequential linear GP.
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