MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207636857 · doi:10.1002/stvr.1796

GPU acceleration of finite state machine input execution: Improving scale and performance

2021· article· en· W3207636857 on OpenAlexaff
Vanya Yaneva, Ajitha Rajan, Christophe Dubach

Bibliographic record

VenueSoftware Testing Verification and Reliability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUniversity of Edinburgh
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityParallel computingKernel (algebra)SpeedupMulti-core processorFinite-state machineAccelerationProcess (computing)CUDAComputer engineeringAlgorithmProgramming languageOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Model‐based development is a popular development approach in which software is implemented and verified based on a model of the required system. Finite state machines (FSMs) are widely used as models for systems in several domains. Validating that a model accurately represents the required behaviour involves the generation and execution of a large number of input sequences, which is often an expensive and time‐consuming process. In this paper, we speed up the execution of input sequences for FSM validation, by leveraging the high degree of parallelism of modern graphics processing units (GPUs) for the automatic execution of FSM input sequences in parallel on the GPU threads. We expand our existing work by providing techniques that improve the performance and scalability of this approach. We conduct extensive empirical evaluation using 15 large FSMs from the networking domain and measure GPU speed‐up over a 16‐core CPU, taking into account total GPU time, which includes both data transfer and kernel execution time. We found that GPUs execute FSM input sequences up to 9.28× faster than a 16‐core CPU, with an average speed‐up of 4.53× across all subjects. Our optimizations achieve an average improvement over existing work of 58.95 % for speed‐up and scalability to large FSMs with over 2K states and 500K transitions. We also found that techniques aimed at reducing the number of required input sequences for large FSMs with high density were ineffective when applied to all‐transition pair coverage, thus emphasizing the need for approaches like ours that speed up input execution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoftware Testing Verification and ReliabilitySame topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207