MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345880672 · doi:10.1145/2909437.2909459

Towards Interactive Visual Exploration of Parallel Programs using a Domain-Specific Language

2016· article· en· W2345880672 on OpenAlexaff
Tobias Klein, Stefan Brückner, M. Eduard Gröller, Markus Hadwiger, Peter Rautek

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVisualizationCorrectnessMassively parallelCompilerSource codeKernel (algebra)Interactive visualizationCode (set theory)Domain (mathematical analysis)Programming languageData visualizationProgram optimizationParallel computingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of GPUs and the massively parallel computing paradigm have become wide-spread. We describe a framework for the interactive visualization and visual analysis of the run-time behavior of massively parallel programs, especially OpenCL kernels. This facilitates understanding a program's function and structure, finding the causes of possible slowdowns, locating program bugs, and interactively exploring and visually comparing different code variants in order to improve performance and correctness. Our approach enables very specific, user-centered analysis, both in terms of the recording of the run-time behavior and the visualization itself. Instead of having to manually write instrumented code to record data, simple code annotations tell the source-to-source compiler which code instrumentation to generate automatically. The visualization part of our framework then enables the interactive analysis of kernel run-time behavior in a way that can be very specific to a particular problem or optimization goal, such as analyzing the causes of memory bank conflicts or understanding an entire parallel algorithm.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207