MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127431051 · doi:10.1109/ipdps.2008.4536467

A linear solver for benchmarking partitioners

2008· article· en· W2127431051 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

VenueProceedings - IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInterconnection Networks and Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGraph partitionBenchmarkingPartition (number theory)Parallel computingSolverWorkloadBenchmark (surveying)GraphTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of graph partitioners are currently available for solving linear systems on parallel computers. Partitioning algorithms divide the graph that arises from the linear system into a specified number of partitions such that the workload per processor is balanced and the communication between the processors is minimized. The measure of partition quality is often taken to be the number of edges cut by the partition. Ultimately the quality of a partition will be reflected in the execution time of the parallel application. In this paper, we introduce a linear solver benchmark that enables comparison of partition quality. This work also serves to motivate further work on developing benchmarks for graph partitioners.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.236 · 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