MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900365206 · doi:10.1145/3240765.3243484

Machine learning for performance and power modeling of heterogeneous systems

2018· article· en· W2900365206 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph L. Greathouse, Gabriel H. Loh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsAdvanced Micro Devices (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern processing systems with heterogeneous components (e.g., CPUs, GPUs) have numerous configuration and design options such as the number and types of cores, frequency, and memory bandwidth. Hardware architects must perform design space explorations in order to accurately target markets of interest under tight time-to-market constraints. This need highlights the importance of rapid performance and power estimation mechanisms. This work describes the use of machine learning (ML) techniques within a methodology for the estimating performance and power of heterogeneous systems. In particular, we measure the power and performance of a large collection of test applications running on real hardware across numerous hardware configurations. We use these measurements to train a ML model; the model learns how the applications scale with the system's key design parameters. Later, new applications of interest are executed on a single configuration, and we gather hardware performance counter values which describe how the application used the hardware. These values are fed into our ML model's inference algorithm, which quickly identify how this application will scale across various design points. In this way, we can rapidly predict the performance and power of the new application across a wide range of system configurations. Once the initial run of the program is complete, our ML algorithm can predict the application's performance and power at many hardware points faster than running it at each of those points and with a level of accuracy comparable to cycle-level simulators.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207