MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510992263 · doi:10.1109/wolfhpc.2016.06

Devito: Automated Fast Finite Difference Computation

2016· preprint· en· W2510992263 on OpenAlexafffund
Navjot Kukreja, Mathias Louboutin, Felippe Vieira, Fabio Luporini, Michael Lange, Gerard Gorman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaImperial College LondonMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e InovaçãoSENAI CIMATEC
KeywordsComputer scienceDomain-specific languageAbstractionDomain (mathematical analysis)StencilTheoretical computer scienceProgramming languageCode (set theory)ComputationVariety (cybernetics)Finite differenceAlgorithmComputational scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Domain specific languages have successfully been used in a variety of fields to cleanly express scientific problems as well as to simplify implementation and performance optimization on different computer architectures. Although a large number of stencil languages are available, finite difference domain specific languages have proved challenging to design because most practical use cases require additional features that fall outside the finite difference abstraction. Inspired by the complexity of real-world seismic imaging problems, we introduce Devito, a domain specific language in which high level equations are expressed using symbolic expressions from the SymPy package. Complex equations are automatically manipulated, optimized, and translated into highly optimized C code that aims to perform comparably or better than hand-tuned code. All this is transparent to users, who only see concise symbolic mathematical expressions.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207