HPC<sup>2</sup> lusterScape: Increasing Transparency and Efficiency of Shared High-Performance Computing Clusters for Large-scale AI Models
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 emergence of large-scale AI models, like GPT-4, has significantly impacted academia and industry, driving the demand for high-performance computing (HPC) to accelerate workloads. To address this, we present $HPC^{2}lusterScape$, a visualization system that enhances the efficiency and transparency of shared HPC clusters for large-scale AI models. $HPC^{2}lusterScape$ provides a comprehensive overview of system-level (e.g., partitions, hosts, and workload status) and application-level (e.g., identification of experiments and researchers) information, allowing HPC operators and machine learning researchers to monitor resource utilization and identify issues through customizable violation rules. The system includes diagnostic tools to investigate workload imbalances and synchronization bottlenecks in large-scale distributed deep learning experiments. Deployed in industrial-scale HPC clusters, $HPC^{2}lusterScape$ incorporates user feedback and meets specific requirements. This paper outlines the challenges and prerequisites for efficient HPC operation, introduces the interactive visualization system, and highlights its contributions in addressing pain points and optimizing resource utilization in shared HPC clusters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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