MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071505862 · doi:10.1145/1723028.1723033

Parallel catastrophe modelling on a cell processor

2009· article· en· W2071505862 on OpenAlexaff
Frank Dehne, Glenn Hickey, Andrew Rau‐Chaplin, Mark Byrne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSpeedupParallel computingComputationCode (set theory)Vectorization (mathematics)AlgorithmProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we study the potential performance improvements for catastrophe modelling systems that can be achieved through parallelization on a Cell Processor. We studied and parallelized a critical section of catastrophe modelling, the so called "inner loop", and implemented it on a Cell Processor running on a regular Playstation 3 platform. The Cell Processor is known to be a challenging environment for software development. In particular, the small internal storage available at each SPE of the Cell Processor is a considerable challenge for catastrophe modelling because the catastrophe modelling algorithm requires frequent accesses to large lookup tables. Our parallel solution is a combination of multiple techniques: streaming data to the SPEs and parallelizing inner loop computations, building caches on the SPEs to store parts of the large catastrophe modelling lookup tables, vectorizing the computation on the SPEs, and double-buffering the file I/O. On a (Playstation 3) Cell Processor with six active SPEs and 4-way vectorization on each SPE (implying a maximum theoretical 24x speedup), we were able to measure a sustained 16x speedup for our parallel catastrophe modelling code over a wide range of data sizes for real life Japanese earthquake data.

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 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.244
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207