MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7000453708

Fast Sparse Matrix Reordering on GPU for Cholesky Based Solvers

2024· other· en· W7000453708 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCholesky decompositionSpeedupImplementationSparse matrixGraphMinimum degree algorithmReduction (mathematics)CUDAMatrix (chemical analysis)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cholesky-based linear solvers are widely employed to solve large sparse positive semi-definite linear systems. Within the reordering, analyzing, factorizing, and solving pipeline, the reorder- ing of sparse matrices is a critical step in reducing non-zero fill-ins, thereby decreasing runtime and memory consumption. However, this stage remains the most time-consuming component of the linear solving process. There is currently a lack of GPU implementations specifically designed for matrix reordering in linear solving. This thesis proposes, to our knowledge, the first GPU-based nested dissection reordering algorithm. Our approach aims to achieve signif- icantly faster reordering times compared to traditional CPU-based methods while maintaining comparable quality in terms of non-zero fill-ins. We have implemented the proposed algorithm and conducted comprehensive performance comparisons with established CPU-based Nested Dissection implementations on various triangle mesh inputs. Our results demonstrate that the GPU-based reordering algorithm can achieve more than a 5 times speedup on average when applied to triangle mesh inputs. However, we produce an average of 6 times more non-zero ele- ments after Cholesky factorization compared to METIS, a widely-used graph partitioning soft- ware, based on our tests. Future work focuses on refining our partitioning strategy to achieve better fill-in reduction without sacrificing the significant speed advantages. Finally, we discuss the insights gained from our current implementation and outline future directions for further optimization and analysis.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.227 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207