MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095777721

A dynamic diffusion optimization method for irregular finite element graph partitioning,” The

2013· article· en· W7095777721 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputationFinite element methodGraphHeuristicsGraph partitionLoad balancing (electrical power)Graph theory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. To efficiently execute a finite element application program on a distributed memory multicomputer, we need to distribute nodes of a finite element graph to processors of a distributed memory multicomputer as evenly as possible and minimize the communication cost of processors. This partitioning problem is known to be NP-complete. Therefore, many heuristics have been proposed to find satisfactory sub-optimal solutions. Based on these heuristics, many graph partitioners have been developed. Among them, Jostle, Metis, and Party are considered as the best graph partitioners available up-to-date. For these three graph partitioners, in order to minimize the total cut-edges, in general, they allow 3 % to 5 % load imbalance among processors. This is a tradeoff between the communication cost and the computation cost of the partitioning problem. In this paper, we propose an optimization method, the dynamic diffusion method (DDM), to balance the 3 % to 5 % load imbalance allowed by these three graph partitioners while minimizing the total cut-edges among partitioned modules. To evaluate the proposed method, we compare the performance of the dynamic diffusion method with the directed diffusion method and the multilevel diffusion method on an IBM SP2 parallel machine. Three 2D and two 3D irregular finite element graphs are used as test samples. For each test sample, 3 % and 5 % load imbalance situations are tested. From the experimental results, we have the following conclusions. (1) The

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207