Collective Mind: Towards Practical and Collaborative Auto-Tuning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical auto-tuning and machine learning techniques have been showing high potential to improve execution time, power consumption, code size, reliability and other important metrics of various applications for more than two decades. However, they are still far from widespread production use due to lack of native support for auto-tuning in an ever changing and complex software and hardware stack, large and multi-dimensional optimization spaces, excessively long exploration times, and lack of unified mechanisms for preserving and sharing of optimization knowledge and research material. We present a possible collaborative approach to solve above problems using Collective Mind knowledge management system. In contrast with previous cTuning framework, this modular infrastructure allows to preserve and share through the Internet the whole auto-tuning setups with all related artifacts and their software and hardware dependencies besides just performance data. It also allows to gradually structure, systematize and describe all available research material including tools, benchmarks, data sets, search strategies and machine learning models. Researchers can take advantage of shared components and data with extensible meta-description to quickly and collaboratively validate and improve existing auto-tuning and benchmarking techniques or prototype new ones. The community can now gradually learn and improve complex behavior of all existing computer systems while exposing behavior anomalies or model mispredictions to an interdisciplinary community in a reproducible way for further analysis. We present several practical, collaborative and model-driven auto-tuning scenarios. We also decided to release all material atc-mind.org/repoto set up an example for a collaborative and reproducible research as well as our new publication model in computer engineering where experimental results are continuously shared and validated by the community.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".