MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150410776 · doi:10.1109/clustr.2009.5289203

Two-phase load distribution for rendering large 3D models on a graphics cluster

2009· article· en· W2150410776 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandre Beaudoin, Dhrubajyoti Goswami, Sudhir P. Mudur

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsShaderRendering (computer graphics)Computer scienceComputer graphics (images)Real-time renderingGraphicsVertex (graph theory)Software renderingPixelTiled renderingGraphics hardwareComputationGeneral-purpose computing on graphics processing unitsArtificial intelligence3D computer graphicsAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we address the problem of distributing rendering computations for real-time display of very large 3D models using a graphics cluster. With a programmable graphics processing unit (GPU) in each node, rendering computations are increasingly carried out in two phases using two separate GPU programs: a vertex shader program for vertex (geometry) processing and a fragment shader program for pixel (color) processing. With fragment shader programs becoming more and more time consuming for increased realism and special visual effects, distributing load solely based on geometry as is done in most contemporary systems can cause significant load imbalance. There is often only a weak correlation between geometry and pixel data distribution, due to multiple factors such as occlusion of objects behind, by objects in front. Clearly, load balancing for geometry processing or pixel processing alone is not optimal. In this paper, we present a novel in-frame two-phase load-balancing technique that distributes data first for geometry and then for pixel processing. The technique is implemented on a graphics cluster and experimental results demonstrate considerable improvements in rendering performance.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207