Representing Task and Machine Heterogeneities for Heterogeneous Computing Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A distributed heterogeneous computing (HC) system consists of diversely capable machines harnessed together to execute a set of tasks that vary in their computational requirements. Heuristics are needed to map (match and schedule) tasks onto machines in an HC system so as to optimize some figure of merit. An HC system model is needed to simulate different HC environments to allow the study of the relative performance of different mapping heuristics under different circumstances. This paper characterizes a simulated HC environment by using the expected execution times of the tasks that arrive in the system on the different machines present in the system. This information is arranged in an “expected time to compute ” (ETC) matrix as a model of the given HC system, where the entry (i, j) is the expected execution time of task i on machine j. The ETC model is used to express the heterogeneity among the runtimes of the tasks to be executed, and among the machines in the HC system. An existing range-based technique to express heterogeneity in ETC matrices is described. A coefficient-of-variation based technique to express heterogeneity in ETC matrices is proposed, and compared with the range-based technique. The coefficient-of-variation-based ETC generation method provides a greater control over the spread of values (i.e., heterogeneity) in any given row or column of the ETC matrix than the range-based method. Key Words: distributed computing, heterogeneous computing, workload characterization, modeling computer systems heterogeneity, modeling workload heterogeneity, cluster computing, grid computing *This research was supported by the DARPA/ITO
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".