MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

TapeFlow: Streaming Gradient Tapes in Automatic Differentiation

2024· article· en· W4392265952 on OpenAlexaff
Milad Hakimi, Arrvindh Shriraman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOperandCompilerCacheParallel computingStencilStatic random-access memoryReuseScheduleLocality of referenceDramCode (set theory)OverlayChipOverhead (engineering)Optimizing compilerAutomatic differentiationComputationComputer hardwareSet (abstract data type)AlgorithmComputational scienceProgramming languageOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computing gradients is a crucial task in many domains, including machine learning, physics simulations, and scientific computing. Automatic differentiation (AD) computes gradients for arbitrary imperative code. In reverse mode AD, an auxiliary structure, the tape, is used to transfer intermediary values required for gradient computation. The challenge is how to organize the tape in the memory hierarchy since it has a high reuse distance, lacks temporal locality, and inflates working set by 2-4×. We introduce Tapeflow, a compiler framework to orchestrate and manage the gradient tape. We make three key contributions. i) We introduce the concept of regions, which transforms the tape layout into an array-of-structs format to improve spatial reuse. ii) We schedule the execution into layers and explicitly orchestrate the tape operands using a scratchpad. This reduces the required cache size and on-chip energy. iii) Finally, we stream the tape from the DRAM by organizing it into a FIFO of tiles. The tape operands arrive just-in-time for each layer. Tapeflow, running on the same hardware, outperforms Enzyme, the state-of-the-art compiler, by 1.3-2.5×, reduces on-chip SRAM usage by 5–40 ×, and saves 8× on-chip energy. We demonstrate Tapeflow on a wide range of algorithms written in general-purpose language.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207