Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Paulius Micikevicius

dblp:37/357 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Systems, architecture and hardware · 3 · 1 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
2 papers
Performance modeling and evaluation · 32% Integrated circuit design · 27% High-performance computing · 14%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Efficient and distributed learning · 50% Deep learning architectures and training · 50%

Topics — the 7 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Performance modeling and evaluation
benchmarking
0.412020
MLPerf Inference Benchmark · ISCA 2020
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
low-precision training
0.312018
Mixed Precision Training · ICLR (Poster) 2018
High-performance computing › supercomputing
exascale computing
0.212014
Scaling the Power Wall: A Path to Exascale · SC 2014
Integrated circuit design
low-power circuit design
0.212014
Scaling the Power Wall: A Path to Exascale · SC 2014
Integrated circuit design › memory circuit design
low-voltage SRAM
0.212014
Scaling the Power Wall: A Path to Exascale · SC 2014
Energy-efficient computing
power wall
0.212014
Scaling the Power Wall: A Path to Exascale · SC 2014
Hardware accelerators and domain-specific architectures
machine learning accelerator
0.112020
MLPerf Inference Benchmark · ISCA 2020

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

mixed-precision training · 0.3power modeling · 0.2architectural simulation · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 MLPerf Inference Benchmark
abstract
Machine-learning (ML) hardware and software system demand is burgeoning. Driven by ML applications, the number of different ML inference systems has exploded. Over 100 organizations are building ML inference chips, and the systems that incorporate existing models span at least three orders of magnitude in power consumption and five orders of magnitude in performance; they range from embedded devices to data-center solutions. Fueling the hardware are a dozen or more software frameworks and libraries. The myriad combinations of ML hardware and ML software make assessing ML-system performance in an architecture-neutral, representative, and reproducible manner challenging. There is a clear need for industry-wide standard ML benchmarking and evaluation criteria. MLPerf Inference answers that call. In this paper, we present our benchmarking method for evaluating ML inference systems. Driven by more than 30 organizations as well as more than 200 ML engineers and practitioners, MLPerf prescribes a set of rules and best practices to ensure comparability across systems with wildly differing architectures. The first call for submissions garnered more than 600 reproducible inference-performance measurements from 14 organizations, representing over 30 systems that showcase a wide range of capabilities. The submissions attest to the benchmark’s flexibility and adaptability.
Vijay Janapa Reddi, David Kanter, Peter Mattson, Guenther Schmuelling, Carole-Jean Wu, Maximilien Breughe, Mark Charlebois, William Chou, Ramesh Chukka, Cody Coleman, Sam Davis, Gregory Frederick Diamos, Jared Duke, David Fick, J. Scott Gardner, Itay Hubara, Sachin Idgunji, Thomas B. Jablin, Jeff Jiao, Tom St. John, Pankaj Kanwar, Jeffery Liao, Anton Lokhmotov, Francisco Massa, Peng Meng, Paulius Micikevicius, Colin Osborne, Gennady Pekhimenko, Arun Tejusve Raghunath Rajan, Dilip Sequeira, Ashish Sirasao, Fei Sun 0002, Michael Thomson, Frank Wei, Ephrem Wu, Lingjie Xu, Koichi Yamada, George Yuan, Aaron Zhong, Peizhao Zhang
ISCA30
2018 Mixed Precision Training
Paulius Micikevicius, Sharan Narang, Jonah Alben, Gregory Frederick Diamos, Erich Elsen, Boris Ginsburg, Michael Houston, Oleksii Kuchaiev, Ganesh Venkatesh
ICLR (Poster)1
2014 Scaling the Power Wall: A Path to Exascale
abstract
Modern scientific discovery is driven by an insatiable demand for computing performance. The HPC community is targeting development of supercomputers able to sustain 1 ExaFlops by the year 2020 and power consumption is the primary obstacle to achieving this goal. A combination of architectural improvements, circuit design, and manufacturing technologies must provide over a 20× improvement in energy efficiency. In this paper, we present some of the progress NVIDIA Research is making toward the design of Exascale systems by tailoring features to address the scaling challenges of performance and energy efficiency. We evaluate several architectural concepts for a set of HPC applications demonstrating expected energy efficiency improvements resulting from circuit and packaging innovations such as low-voltage SRAM, low-energy signalling, and on-package memory. Finally, we discuss the scaling of these features with respect to future process technologies and provide power and performance projections for our Exascale research architecture.
Oreste Villa, Daniel R. Johnson, Mike O'Connor, Evgeny Bolotin, David W. Nellans, Justin Luitjens, Nikolai Sakharnykh, Paulius Micikevicius, Anthony Scudiero, Stephen W. Keckler, William J. Dally
SC9
2007 Exploring Topological Properties of NMR Graphs
abstract
In this paper we explore the topological properties of graphs derived from nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) restraint data. Only the distance bound data is considered, connecting nodes only if the file contains a bound for the corresponding inter-atomic distance. Since NMR provides bounds for spatially-close atom pairs, the structure of the NMR graph depends heavily on the molecule's 3D shape. Therefore, understanding NMR graph topology is relevant to 3D structure prediction. We examine NMR graphs for nine molecules, sizes ranging between 195 and 1178 nodes. Three categories of topological properties are studied: connected components, diameter, and node-degree sequence. Several interesting observations emerged when relating the diameter and maximum degree to the size of the graph.
Paulius Micikevicius, Narsingh Deo
BIBE1
2005 Cluster Computing for Determining Three-Dimensional Protein Structure
Paulius Micikevicius, Narsingh Deo
J. Supercomput.1