MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deep Learning Language Modeling Workloads: Where Time Goes on Graphics Processors

2019· article· en· W3011993190 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Hadi Zadeh, Zissis Poulos, Andreas Moshovos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftmax functionComputer scienceGraphicsLanguage modelVocabularyTransformerDeep learningLayer (electronics)ComputationParallel computingArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Language Modeling is at the core of many natural language processing tasks. We analyze two such recent models: a Gated Convolutional Network (GCN) with five layers on the Wikitext-2 dataset and a Transformer network with 24 layers on the Google Billion Word dataset. We find that when executed on modern graphics processors, 30% - 40% of the execution time is due to the final adaptive softmax layer. Analytical modeling of the computation and memory demands of the GCN shows that this behavior will persist even if the hidden state is increased - which could be needed to improve accuracy or to support a wider vocabulary. We present variations of the adaptive softmax layer that reduce execution time for the layer by 40% and that scale better with the hidden state.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207