MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142016460 · doi:10.1109/hpcc.2008.85

Parallel Algorithm Design and Performance Evaluation of FDTD on 3 Different Architectures: Cluster, Homogeneous Multicore and Cell/B.E.

2008· article· en· W2142016460 on OpenAlexafffund
Meilian Xu, Parimala Thulasiraman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of ManitobaGeorgia Institute of Technology
KeywordsMulti-core processorComputer scienceSingle-coreParallel computingHomogeneousOut-of-core algorithmFinite-difference time-domain methodDomain (mathematical analysis)BroadbandComputer architectureAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clusters built from single-core systems are cost-effective as for the performance improvement and availability. However, the hardware constraints put limitations on the performance of single-core systems. Hence, it is difficult to meet with the increasing high performance requirements of diversified applications at different levels for general purpose computing. A promising feasible solution is the novice multi-core systems which extend the parallelism to CPU level by integrating multiple processing units on a single die. This paper uses finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) algorithm as a case study, designing suitable parallel FDTD algorithms for three architectures: distributed-memory machines with single-core processors, shared-memory machines with dual-core processors, and the Cell Broadband Engine (Cell/B.E.) processor with nine heterogeneous cores. The experiment results show that the Cell/B.E. processor using 8 SPEs achieves a significant speedups of 7.05 faster than AMD single-core Opteron processor and 3.37 than AMD dual-core Opeteron processor at the processor level.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical MethodsFrench-language works237,207