MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046916337 · doi:10.1137/130941912

Massively Parallel Approximate Gaussian Process Regression

2014· article· en· W2046916337 on OpenAlexaff
Robert B. Gramacy, Jarad Niemi, Robin M. Weiss

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsBooth University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEmulationMassively parallelGaussian processSet (abstract data type)ComputationParallel computingBig dataGeneral-purpose computing on graphics processing unitsProcess (computing)Scheme (mathematics)MultiprocessingCUDAComputational scienceTheoretical computer scienceGaussianAlgorithmGraphicsData miningMathematicsComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explore how the big-three computing paradigms---symmetric multiprocessor, graphical processing units (GPUs), and cluster computing---can together be brought to bear on large-data Gaussian processes (GP) regression problems via a careful implementation of a newly developed local approximation scheme. Our methodological contribution focuses primarily on GPU computation, as this requires the most care and also provides the largest performance boost. However, in our empirical work we study the relative merits of all three paradigms to determine how best to combine them. The paper concludes with two case studies. One is a real data fluid-dynamics computer experiment which benefits from the local nature of our approximation; the second is a synthetic example designed to find the largest data set for which (accurate) GP emulation can be performed on a commensurate predictive set in under an hour.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty QuantificationSame topicGaussian Processes and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207