BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Hugh Leather

Hugh Leather appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Programming LanguagesMachine LearningArtificial IntelligenceDistributed, Parallel, and Cluster ComputingPerformanceSoftware Engineering

Catalog footprint

What is connected

7works
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2024arXiv

CRUXEval: A Benchmark for Code Reasoning, Understanding and Execution

We present CRUXEval (Code Reasoning, Understanding, and eXecution Evaluation), a benchmark consisting of 800 Python functions (3-13 lines). Each function comes with an input-output pair, leading to two natural tasks: input prediction and output prediction. First, we propose a generic recipe for generating our execution benchmark which can be used to create future variation of the benchmark. Second, we evaluate twenty code models on our benchmark and discover that many recent high-scoring models on HumanEval do not show the same improvements on our benchmark. Third, we show that simple CoT and fine-tuning schemes can improve performance on our benchmark but remain far from solving it. The best setup, GPT-4 with chain of thought (CoT), achieves a pass@1 of 75% and 81% on input and output prediction, respectively. In contrast, Code Llama 34B achieves a pass@1 of 50% and 46% on input and output prediction, highlighting the gap between open and closed source models. As no model is close to acing CRUXEval, we provide examples of consistent GPT-4 failures on simple programs as a lens into its code reasoning capabilities and areas for improvement.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

BenchPress: A Deep Active Benchmark Generator

We develop BenchPress, the first ML benchmark generator for compilers that is steerable within feature space representations of source code. BenchPress synthesizes compiling functions by adding new code in any part of an empty or existing sequence by jointly observing its left and right context, achieving excellent compilation rate. BenchPress steers benchmark generation towards desired target features that has been impossible for state of the art synthesizers (or indeed humans) to reach. It performs better in targeting the features of Rodinia benchmarks in 3 different feature spaces compared with (a) CLgen - a state of the art ML synthesizer, (b) CLSmith fuzzer, (c) SRCIROR mutator or even (d) human-written code from GitHub. BenchPress is the first generator to search the feature space with active learning in order to generate benchmarks that will improve a downstream task. We show how using BenchPress, Grewe's et al. CPU vs GPU heuristic model can obtain a higher speedup when trained on BenchPress's benchmarks compared to other techniques. BenchPress is a powerful code generator: Its generated samples compile at a rate of 86%, compared to CLgen's 2.33%. Starting from an empty fixed input, BenchPress produces 10x more unique, compiling OpenCL benchmarks than CLgen, which are significantly larger and more feature diverse.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Caviar: An E-graph Based TRS for Automatic Code Optimization

Term Rewriting Systems (TRSs) are used in compilers to simplify and prove expressions. State-of-the-art TRSs in compilers use a greedy algorithm that applies a set of rewriting rules in a predefined order (where some of the rules are not axiomatic). This leads to a loss of the ability to simplify certain expressions. E-graphs and equality saturation sidestep this issue by representing the different equivalent expressions in a compact manner from which the optimal expression can be extracted. While an e-graph-based TRS can be more powerful than a TRS that uses a greedy algorithm, it is slower because expressions may have a large or sometimes infinite number of equivalent expressions. Accelerating e-graph construction is crucial for making the use of e-graphs practical in compilers. In this paper, we present Caviar, an e-graph-based TRS for proving expressions within compilers. The main advantage of Caviar is its speed. It can prove expressions much faster than base e-graph TRSs. It relies on three techniques: 1) a technique that stops e-graphs from growing when the goal is reached, called Iteration Level Check; 2) a mechanism that balances exploration and exploitation in the equality saturation algorithm, called Pulsing Caviar; 3) a technique to stop e-graph construction before reaching saturation when a non-provable pattern is detected, called Non-Provable Patterns Detection (NPPD). We evaluate caviar on Halide, an optimizing compiler that relies on a greedy-algorithm-based TRS to simplify and prove its expressions. The proposed techniques allow Caviar to accelerate e-graph expansion for the task of proving expressions. They also allow Caviar to prove expressions that Halide's TRS cannot prove while being only 0.68x slower.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Progress Report: A Deep Learning Guided Exploration of Affine Unimodular Loop Transformations

In this paper, we present a work in progress about a deep learning based approach for automatic code optimization in polyhedral compilers. The proposed technique explores combinations of affine and non-affine loop transformations to find the sequence of transformations that minimizes the execution time of a given program. This exploration is guided by a deep learning based cost model that evaluates the speedup that each sequence of transformations would yield. Preliminary results show that the proposed techniques achieve a 2.35x geometric mean speedup over state of the art polyhedral compilers (Pluto).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

ProGraML: Graph-based Deep Learning for Program Optimization and Analysis

The increasing complexity of computing systems places a tremendous burden on optimizing compilers, requiring ever more accurate and aggressive optimizations. Machine learning offers significant benefits for constructing optimization heuristics but there remains a gap between what state-of-the-art methods achieve and the performance of an optimal heuristic. Closing this gap requires improvements in two key areas: a representation that accurately captures the semantics of programs, and a model architecture with sufficient expressiveness to reason about this representation. We introduce ProGraML - Program Graphs for Machine Learning - a novel graph-based program representation using a low level, language agnostic, and portable format; and machine learning models capable of performing complex downstream tasks over these graphs. The ProGraML representation is a directed attributed multigraph that captures control, data, and call relations, and summarizes instruction and operand types and ordering. Message Passing Neural Networks propagate information through this structured representation, enabling whole-program or per-vertex classification tasks. ProGraML provides a general-purpose program representation that equips learnable models to perform the types of program analysis that are fundamental to optimization. To this end, we evaluate the performance of our approach first on a suite of traditional compiler analysis tasks: control flow reachability, dominator trees, data dependencies, variable liveness, and common subexpression detection. On a benchmark dataset of 250k LLVM-IR files covering six source programming languages, ProGraML achieves an average 94.0 F1 score, significantly outperforming the state-of-the-art approaches. We then apply our approach to two high-level tasks - heterogeneous device mapping and program classification - setting new state-of-the-art performance in both.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Autotuning OpenCL Workgroup Size for Stencil Patterns

Selecting an appropriate workgroup size is critical for the performance of OpenCL kernels, and requires knowledge of the underlying hardware, the data being operated on, and the implementation of the kernel. This makes portable performance of OpenCL programs a challenging goal, since simple heuristics and statically chosen values fail to exploit the available performance. To address this, we propose the use of machine learning-enabled autotuning to automatically predict workgroup sizes for stencil patterns on CPUs and multi-GPUs. We present three methodologies for predicting workgroup sizes. The first, using classifiers to select the optimal workgroup size. The second and third proposed methodologies employ the novel use of regressors for performing classification by predicting the runtime of kernels and the relative performance of different workgroup sizes, respectively. We evaluate the effectiveness of each technique in an empirical study of 429 combinations of architecture, kernel, and dataset, comparing an average of 629 different workgroup sizes for each. We find that autotuning provides a median 3.79x speedup over the best possible fixed workgroup size, achieving 94% of the maximum performance.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Iterative compilation on mobile devices

The abundance of poorly optimized mobile applications coupled with their increasing centrality in our digital lives make a framework for mobile app optimization an imperative. While tuning strategies for desktop and server applications have a long history, it is difficult to adapt them for use on mobile phones. Reference inputs which trigger behavior similar to a mobile application's typical are hard to construct. For many classes of applications the very concept of typical behavior is nonexistent, each user interacting with the application in very different ways. In contexts like this, optimization strategies need to evaluate their effectiveness against real user input, but doing so online runs the risk of user dissatisfaction when suboptimal optimizations are evaluated. In this paper we present an iterative compiler which employs a novel capture and replay technique in order to collect real user input and use it later to evaluate different transformations offline. The proposed mechanism identifies and stores only the set of memory pages needed to replay the most heavily used functions of the application. At idle periods, this minimal state is combined with different binaries of the application, each one build with different optimizations enabled. Replaying the targeted functions allows us to evaluate the effectiveness of each set of optimizations for the actual way the user interacts with the application. For the BEEBS benchmark suite, our approach was able to improve performance by up to 57%, while keeping the slowdown experienced by the user on average at 0.8%. By focusing only on heavily used functions, we are able to conserve storage space by between two and three orders of magnitude compared to typical capture and replay implementations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access