Towards a Programming Paradigm for Reconfigurable Computing: Asynchronous Graph Programming
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shift towards reconfigurable systems -hardware and software that adapt themselves to an external context- promises to unlock unprecedented performance, power consumption, and quality of service. However, reconfiguration imposes several challenges on the design of cyber-physical systems. Current design practices, including software frameworks and programming languages, are ill-prepared for supporting reconfiguration. In this paper, we explore Asynchronous Graph Programming, a programming paradigm and an associated model of computation designed for efficient and automated parallelization across processing elements, efficient reconfiguration (i.e., mapping of computational tasks across processing elements), and combining synchronous and asynchronous I/O handling within the same conceptual programming model. We also introduce an analytical model of parallelization, unlocked by Asynchronous Graph Programming, that can inform reconfiguration strategies. We analyze the implications of our model through an analysis of reconfiguration scenarios given a program’s characteristics; our analysis quantifies the benefits of reconfiguring software for higher levels of parallelism, given an amount of data left to process. We also introduce Horde, an open source Asynchronous Graph Programming interpreter, and use it to empirically validate the performance advantage of its automatic parallelism capabilities; in our experiments, automatic parallelization from one to four cores improves average case execution time by a factor of 2 and worst case execution time by a factor of 3. This manuscript has been accepted at the IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA 2020)
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it