Understanding error propagation in GPGPU applications
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
GPUs have emerged as general-purpose accelerators in high-performance computing (HPC) and scientific applications. However, the reliability characteristics of GPU applications have not been investigated in depth. While error propagation has been extensively investigated for non-GPU applications, GPU applications have a very different programming model which can have a significant effect on error propagation in them. We perform an empirical study to understand and characterize error propagation in GPU applications. We build a compiler-based fault-injection tool for GPU applications to track error propagation, and define metrics to characterize propagation in GPU applications. We find GPU applications exhibit significant error propagation for some kinds of errors, but not others, and the behaviour is highly application specific. We observe the GPU-CPU interaction boundary naturally limits error propagation in these applications compared to traditional non-GPU applications. We also formulate various guidelines for the design of fault-tolerance mechanisms in GPU applications based on our results.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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