MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520963437 · doi:10.1109/hpcsim.2016.7568334

Metis-CIC: A new mesh partitioning heuristic for parallel preconditioned iterative methods in CFD

2016· article· en· W2520963437 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miao Wang, Wenjing Yang, Hao Li, Yufei Lin, Juan Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Economy, Trade and IndustryNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceMetisParallel computingGraph partitionComputational fluid dynamicsIterative methodRate of convergenceMathematical optimizationConvergence (economics)Linear systemHeuristicAlgorithmGraphTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mesh partitioning has a significant influence on the efficiency of parallel computational fluid dynamics (CFD). This paper considers the most widely-used preconditioned conjugated gradient (PCG) methods for solving the linear systems in parallel since it is the core and most time-consuming part in CFD. Based on the analysis of how mesh partitioning impacts the solution time of parallel PCG, we propose a new cost function combining communication overhead and iterative convergence rate together. An adjustable parameter is involved in the cost function. For a specific application and a given parallel degree, the parameter can be fitted using profiling information of the application. A partitioning method based on the new cost function, named Metis-CIC (Communication overhead and Iterative convergence rate Combined), is implemented in Metis (a general graph partitioning tool). Numerical results of two CFD applications show that Metis-CIC outperforms the standard Metis partitioning routine and Metis-Acut which only considers the iterative convergence rate during the partitioning.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207