MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132871271

Synthesizing Divide-and-Conquer Programs

2022· dissertation· W7132871271 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Nicolet

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2022
Typedissertation
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgrammerCompilerTask (project management)Bridge (graph theory)Program synthesisDomain (mathematical analysis)ArchitectureMulti-core processor
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multicore computers today are ubiquitous, from large distributed systems to desktops and mobile phones. Their complex memory architecture enables fast and efficient execution when used correctly. Many efforts have been invested in making the task of taking advantage of these architectures easier. Among them, the development of optimizing and parallelizing compilers as well as frameworks that provide skeletons for parallelism have abstracted the low-level details of the implementation and the optimization process. Techniques have been developed to optimize the efficiency of algorithms that fit particular skeletons, with one of the most commonly used of these being divide-and-conquer. However, the programmer still has to come up with the divide-and-conquer algorithm that fits such skeletons, often with an error-prone and tedious process. This research work aims at providing automated techniques to bridge the gap in the automated optimization process. Given an input program, our goal is to synthesize an equivalent divide-and-conquer implementation, which can then be optimized using the wealth of techniques available. The methods developed should be implementable in a practical tool leveraging the recent advances in program synthesis, but they should also act as a thinking tool for programmers when the solvers fail. This dissertation proposes methodologies to split the task of synthesizing a divide-and-conquer program into smaller but more tractable tasks. To solve these tasks, we propose both new deductive approaches to synthesize new functionality and an efficient use of existing synthesis methods. The combination of the methodologies and the synthesis techniques allows us to design a fully automated process, implemented in a tool Parsynt, which succeeds in synthesizing highly non-trivial divide-and-conquer algorithms from simple functions.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.335
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207