MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Communication Issues in Scalable Parallel Computing

2010· book-chapter· en· W2484345647 on OpenAlexaff
C. E. R. Alves, Edson N. Cáceres, F. Dehne, S. W. Song

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityDistributed computingModels of communicationTheoretical computer scienceLimit (mathematics)Communications systemString (physics)Parallel computingComputer networkMathematicsDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this book chapter, the authors discuss some important communication issues to obtain a highly scalable computing system. They consider the CGM (Coarse-Grained Multicomputer) model, a realistic computing model to obtain scalable parallel algorithms. The communication cost is modeled by the number of communication rounds and the objective is to design algorithms that require the minimum number of communication rounds. They discuss some important issues and make considerations of practical importance, based on our previous experience in the design and implementation of parallel algorithms. The first issue is the amount of data transmitted in a communication round. For a practical implementation to be successful they should attempt to minimize this amount, even when it is already within the limit allowed by the CGM model. The second issue concerns the trade-off between the number of communication rounds which the CGM attempts to minimize and the overall communication time taken in the communication rounds. Sometimes a larger number of communication rounds may actually reduce the total amount of data transmitted in the communications rounds. These two issues have guided us to present efficient parallel algorithms for the string similarity problem, used as an illustration.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207