Daydream: Accurately Estimating the Efficacy of Optimizations for {DNN} Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern deep neural network (DNN) training jobs use complex and heterogeneous software/hardware stacks. The efficacy of software-level optimizations can vary significantly when used in different deployment configurations. It is onerous and error-prone for ML practitioners and system developers to implement each optimization separately, and determine which ones will improve performance in their own configurations. Unfortunately, existing profiling tools do not aim to answer predictive questions such as How will optimization X affect the performance of my model?. We address this critical limitation, and proposes a new profiling tool, Daydream, to help programmers efficiently explore the efficacy of DNN optimizations. Daydream models DNN execution with a fine-grained dependency graph based on low-level traces collected by CUPTI, and predicts runtime by simulating execution based on the dependency graph. Daydream maps the low-level traces using DNN domain-specific knowledge, and introduces a set of graph-transformation primitives that can easily model a wide variety of optimizations. We show that Daydream is able to model most mainstream DNN optimization techniques, and accurately predict the efficacy of optimizations that will result in significant performance improvements.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".