MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034886984 · doi:10.1145/2446920.2446921

Automatic speculative parallelization of loops using polyhedral dependence analysis

2013· article· en· W2034886984 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeculative multithreadingParallel computingComputer scienceAutomatic parallelizationHeuristicsSpeculative executionSpeedupHeuristicDependence analysisSpeculationIBMMultiprocessingMultithreadingCompilerProgramming languageOperating systemPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Speculative Execution (SE) runs loops in parallel even in the presence of a dependence. Using polyhedral dependence analysis, more speculation candidate loops can be discovered than normal OpenMP parallelization. In this research, a framework is implemented that can automatically perform speculative parallelization of loops using Polly's [15] polyhedral dependence analysis. The framework uses two different heuristics to find speculation candidates. The first heuristic allows loops with only may dependences to run speculatively in parallel while the second heuristic filters out cold loops and, using profile information, loops with actual run time dependences. The framework is fully automatic. Running SPEC2006 and the PolyBench/C benchmarks on the IBM BlueGene/Q [16] machine shows that the framework is able to discover more parallelization candidates than OpenMP parallelization and achieve better speedup.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it