Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common operation in many data analytics workloads is to find the top-k items, i.e., the largest or smallest operations according to some sort order (implemented via LIMIT or ORDER BY expressions in SQL). A naive implementation of top-k is to sort all of the items and then return the first k, but this does much more work than needed. Although efficient implementations for top-k have been explored on traditional multi-core processors, there has been no prior systematic study of top-k implementations on GPUs, despite open requests for such implementations in GPU-based frameworks like TensorFlow 1 and ArrayFire 2 . In this work, we present several top-k algorithms for GPUs, including a new algorithm based on bitonic sort called bitonic top-k. The bitonic top-k algorithm is up to a factor of 15x faster than sort and 4x faster than a variety of other possible implementations for values of k up to 256. We also develop a cost model to predict the performance of several of our algorithms, and show that it accurately predicts actual performance on modern GPUs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.055 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".