Using generative design patterns to generate parallel code for a distributed memory environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A design pattern is a mechanism for encapsulating the knowledge of experienced designers into a re-usable artifact. Parallel design patterns reflect commonly occurring parallel communication and synchronization structures. Our tools, CO2P3S (Correct Object-Oriented Pattern-based Parallel Programming System) and MetaCO2P3S, use generative design patterns . A programmer selects the parallel design patterns that are appropriate for an application, and then adapts the patterns for that specific application by selecting from a small set of code-configuration options. CO2P3S then generates a custom framework for the application that includes all of the structural code necessary for the application to run in parallel. The programmer is only required to write simple code that launches the application and to fill in some application-specific sequential hook routines. We use generative design patterns to take an application specification (parallel design patterns + sequential user code) and use it to generate parallel application code that achieves good performance in shared memory and distributed memory environments. Although our implementations are for Java, the approach we describe is tool and language independent. This paper describes generalizing CO2P3S to generate distributed-memory parallel solutions.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".