MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889271070 · doi:10.1109/ispdc2018.2018.00021

Global Application States Monitoring Applied to Graph Partitioning Optimization

2018· article· en· W2889271070 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Smyk, Marek Tudruj, Lukasz Grochal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGraph partitionAsynchronous communicationGraphBenchmark (surveying)Distributed computingParallel computingTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents how an advanced graph partitioning optimization method was implemented inside a novel distributed program design framework PEGASUS DA which provides system support for automatic global application states monitoring. In PEGASUS DA, execution control design of distributed applications is system-supported by program global state monitoring run-time. This support provides an automatic construction of user-defined relevant strongly consistent global application states, computing global control predicates on the constructed states, evaluation of these predicates and sending asynchronous control signals to application threads and processes to stimulate the desired global state-driven reactions. The presented graph partitioning optimization algorithm is based on user-defined mixed partitioning strategies. It includes a combined use of different graph partitioning methods and different criteria for definition and assessment of produced partitions. It runs on top of basic graph partitioning methods available inside the METIS partitioning tool. The partitioning is executed by distributed processes and threads controlled by global states monitoring provided by the PEGASUS DA framework. Its use allows easy design and testing of different graph optimization strategies, finding graph partitioning optimal methods and algorithm parameters. The graph partitioning methods presented in the paper are illustrated by experiments performed with partitioning of a number of benchmark graphs to show partitioning quality (from 5% to 30% of the improvement has been observed) and execution time assessment of the proposed approach.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207