Communication Issues in Scalable Parallel Computing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".