MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043202537 · doi:10.1007/s00500-020-05152-8

A load balance multi-scheduling model for OpenCL kernel tasks in an integrated cluster

2020· article· en· W3043202537 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSoft Computing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
FundersHøgskulen på Vestlandet
KeywordsComputer scienceFeature selectionNaive Bayes classifierClassifier (UML)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceRandom forestMulti-core processorScheduling (production processes)Parallel computingSupport vector machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Nowadays, embedded systems are comprised of heterogeneous multi-core architectures, i.e., CPUs and GPUs. If the application is mapped to an appropriate processing core, then these architectures provide many performance benefits to applications. Typically, programmers map sequential applications to CPU and parallel applications to GPU. The task mapping becomes challenging because of the usage of evolving and complex CPU- and GPU-based architectures. This paper presents an approach to map the OpenCL application to heterogeneous multi-core architecture by determining the application suitability and processing capability. The classification is achieved by developing a machine learning-based device suitability classifier that predicts which processor has the highest computational compatibility to run OpenCL applications. In this paper, 20 distinct features are proposed that are extracted by using the developed LLVM-based static analyzer. In order to select the best subset of features, feature selection is performed by using both correlation analysis and the feature importance method. For the class imbalance problem, we use and compare synthetic minority over-sampling method with and without feature selection. Instead of hand-tuning the machine learning classifier, we use the tree-based pipeline optimization method to select the best classifier and its hyper-parameter. We then compare the optimized selected method with traditional algorithms, i.e., random forest, decision tree, Naïve Bayes and KNN. We apply our novel approach on extensively used OpenCL benchmarks, i.e., AMD and Polybench. The dataset contains 653 training and 277 testing applications. We test the classification results using four performance metrics, i.e., F -measure, precision, recall and $$R^2$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msup> <mml:mi>R</mml:mi> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:msup> </mml:math> . The optimized and reduced feature subset model achieved a high F -measure of 0.91 and $$R^2$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msup> <mml:mi>R</mml:mi> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:msup> </mml:math> of 0.76. The proposed framework automatically distributes the workload based on the application requirement and processor compatibility.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.257 · 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