MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312970260 · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3211072

Virtual LiDAR Simulation as a High Performance Computing Challenge: Toward HPC HELIOS++

2022· article· en· W4312970260 on OpenAlexaff
Alberto Manuel Esmorís Pena, Miguel Yermo, Hannah Weiser, Lukas Winiwarter, Bernhard Höfle, Francisco F. Rivera

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersXunta de GaliciaMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónConsellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación Universitaria, Xunta de GaliciaDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsComputer scienceSupercomputerParallel computingGranularitySoftwareComputationComputational sciencePolygon meshSynchronization (alternating current)BottleneckSpeedupVirtual machineTracingRay tracing (physics)HeuristicDistributed computingAlgorithmComputer graphics (images)Operating systemArtificial intelligenceEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The software HELIOS++ simulates the laser scanning of a given virtual scene that can be composed of different spatial primitives and 3D meshes with distinct granularity. The high computational cost of this type of simulation software demands efficient computational solutions. Classical solutions based on GPU are not well suited when irregular geometries compose the scene combining different primitives and physics models because they lead to different computation branches. In this paper, we explore the usage of parallelization strategies based on static and dynamic workload balancing and heuristic optimization strategies to speed up the ray tracing process based on a k-dimensional tree (KDT). Using HELIOS++ as our case study, we analyze the performance of our algorithms on different parallel computers, including the CESGA FinisTerrae-II supercomputer. There is a significant performance boost in all cases, with the decrease in computation time ranging from 89.5% to 99.4%. Our results show that the proposed algorithms can boost the performance of any software that relies heavily on a KDT or a similar data structure, as well as those that spend most of the time computing with only a few synchronization barriers. Hence, the algorithms presented in this paper improve performance, whether computed on personal computers or supercomputers.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207