A Comparative Analysis of the Performance of Scalable Parallel Patterns Applied to Genetic Algorithms and Configured for NVIDIA GPUs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parallel programming patterns are built upon a foundation of serial programming patterns to maximize the efficiency of parallel code and effectively use parallel resources available in a given system. This work focuses on using NVIDIA GPUs with the CUDA C library for parallel computing. The goal is to implement parallel versions of a genetic algorithm using the Map and Fork-Join parallel patterns to improve its performance. The intent is to demonstrate that the parallel patterns can be implemented on the CUDA platform and achieve increases in speedup, efficiency, and scalability with the parallel genetic algorithms. A comparative assessment of the two parallel patterns is conducted by configuring them to evaluate instances of the Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP) using different data sets. This assessment considers each algorithm’s run time performance, their use of system resources, and their required overhead.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it