MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

HiPIPE: Adaptive-Chunk Pipeline Scheduling for Hierarchical Collective Communication

2025· article· en· W4414170464 on OpenAlexaff
Xin Song, Manaf Bin-Yahya, Amir Shani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEmbedded Systems Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScheduling (production processes)EmulationNetwork topologyPipeline (software)Bandwidth (computing)Telecommunications networkOptimization problem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-dimensional networks have become the standard for interconnecting GPUs to support large-scale distributed machine learning (ML) training, driven by increasing computational and memory demands. However, the inherent bandwidth heterogeneity across network dimensions poses a significant challenge in efficiently scheduling collective operations, such as AllReduce, to minimize communication time. Existing hierarchical approaches suffer from inefficiencies due to static or suboptimal pipeline structures with uniform-sized chunks. We propose HiPIPE, a novel solution for multi-dimensional All-Reduce collective communication, incorporating three key optimizations: chunk scheduling across all dimensions, adaptive chunk sizing, and dynamic chunk number selection. These techniques collectively enhance communication efficiency and maximize bandwidth utilization. Particularly, we formulate chunk size optimization as a linear programming problem to derive the optimal chunk sizes, significantly reducing pipeline bubbles and improving overall performance. Extensive experiments using real-testbed emulation demonstrate that HiPIPE consistently outperforms state-of-the-art (SOTA) approaches across diverse network topologies and configurations, achieving an average communication time reduction of 28.85% while sustaining bandwidth utilization of up to 98.11%.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmbedded Systems Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207