Comparing Llama-2 and GPT-3 LLMs for HPC kernels generation

September 12, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› International Workshop on Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Pedro Valero-Lara, Alexis Huante, Mustafa Al Lail, William F. Godoy, Keita Teranishi, Prasanna Balaprakash, Jeffrey S. Vetter arXiv ID 2309.07103 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Cross-listed cs.AI, cs.DC, cs.PL Citations 35 Venue International Workshop on Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
We evaluate the use of the open-source Llama-2 model for generating well-known, high-performance computing kernels (e.g., AXPY, GEMV, GEMM) on different parallel programming models and languages (e.g., C++: OpenMP, OpenMP Offload, OpenACC, CUDA, HIP; Fortran: OpenMP, OpenMP Offload, OpenACC; Python: numpy, Numba, pyCUDA, cuPy; and Julia: Threads, CUDA.jl, AMDGPU.jl). We built upon our previous work that is based on the OpenAI Codex, which is a descendant of GPT-3, to generate similar kernels with simple prompts via GitHub Copilot. Our goal is to compare the accuracy of Llama-2 and our original GPT-3 baseline by using a similar metric. Llama-2 has a simplified model that shows competitive or even superior accuracy. We also report on the differences between these foundational large language models as generative AI continues to redefine human-computer interactions. Overall, Copilot generates codes that are more reliable but less optimized, whereas codes generated by Llama-2 are less reliable but more optimized when correct.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted