Extraction and Representation of Sparsity Patterns for Efficient Data Transfer on Accelerators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sparse computations are common in practical HPC, AI and graph-based applications. Such computations often exhibit scattered and fragmented data accesses, which negatively impact data transfer efficiency to/from accelerators. We propose, implement and evaluate an algorithm for extracting or mining sparsity patterns that exist in sparse matrices. The algorithm extracts multiple pattern types in a matrix, including blocks, bands, triangles or regular compositions of each. It does so without a priori knowledge of the presence of these patterns in the matrix. The patterns may contain, under user control, zero elements, or imperfections, to facilitate the extraction of larger patterns. Additionally, we introduce the Compressed Sparse Pattern (CSP), a novel compressed representation for sparse matrices that is based on these patterns. The use of CSP combined with extensions to Address Generation Units (AGUs) of accelerators regularize data accesses and improve data transfer efficiency. Evaluation of the pattern mining algorithm and CSP using 26 real-world sparse matrices is conducted on an Ubuntu system with an 8 core Intel CPU (3.6 GHz i7-9700K) and 32 GB of memory. The evaluation shows that patterns of different sizes and shapes are common, representing ∼82% of the non-zero elements in these matrices. The patterns can be efficiently extracted in time, with an average of 4.6 seconds. The evaluation also shows that the mining of composite patterns contributes ∼8% to the number of non-zeros in patterns and that imperfections increase pattern sizes with a minimal impact of only ∼7% zero elements in patterns. Finally, using CSP leads to up to 90% reduction in data transfer overhead, compared to CSR and CSC, both common compressed sparse matrix representations. These results validate our approach of extracting and representing patterns to improve data transfer efficiency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".