Results 1  10
of
111
Automatically characterizing large scale program behavior
, 2002
"... Understanding program behavior is at the foundation of computer architecture and program optimization. Many programs have wildly different behavior on even the very largest of scales (over the complete execution of the program). This realization has ramifications for many architectural and compile ..."
Abstract

Cited by 619 (41 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Understanding program behavior is at the foundation of computer architecture and program optimization. Many programs have wildly different behavior on even the very largest of scales (over the complete execution of the program). This realization has ramifications for many architectural and compiler techniques, from thread scheduling, to feedback directed optimizations, to the way programs are simulated. However, in order to take advantage of timevarying behavior, we.must first develop the analytical tools necessary to automatically and efficiently analyze program behavior over large sections of execution. Our goal is to develop automatic techniques that are capable of finding and exploiting the Large Scale Behavior of programs (behavior seen over billions of instructions). The first step towards this goal is the development of a hardware independent metric that can concisely summarize the behavior of an arbitrary section of execution in a program. To this end we examine the use of Basic Block Vectors. We quantify the effectiveness of Basic Block Vectors in capturing program behavior across several different architectural metrics, explore the large scale behavior of several programs, and develop a set of algorithms based on clustering capable of analyzing this behavior. We then demonstrate an application of this technology to automatically determine where to simulate for a program to help guide computer architecture research. 1.
Xmeans: Extending Kmeans with Efficient Estimation of the Number of Clusters
 In Proceedings of the 17th International Conf. on Machine Learning
, 2000
"... Despite its popularity for general clustering, Kmeans suffers three major shortcomings; it scales poorly computationally, the number of clusters K has to be supplied by the user, and the search is prone to local minima. We propose solutions for the first two problems, and a partial remedy for the t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 267 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Despite its popularity for general clustering, Kmeans suffers three major shortcomings; it scales poorly computationally, the number of clusters K has to be supplied by the user, and the search is prone to local minima. We propose solutions for the first two problems, and a partial remedy for the third. Building on prior work for algorithmic acceleration that is not based on approximation, we introduce a new algorithm that efficiently, searches the space of cluster locations and number of clusters to optimize the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) or the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) measure. The innovations include two new ways of exploiting cached sufficient statistics and a new very efficient test that in one Kmeans sweep selects the most promising subset of classes for refinement. This gives rise to a fast, statistically founded algorithm that outputs both the number of classes and their parameters. Experiments show this technique reveals the true number of classes in the underlying distribution, and that it is much faster than repeatedly using accelerated Kmeans for different values of K.
ModelBased Clustering, Discriminant Analysis, and Density Estimation
 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION
, 2000
"... Cluster analysis is the automated search for groups of related observations in a data set. Most clustering done in practice is based largely on heuristic but intuitively reasonable procedures and most clustering methods available in commercial software are also of this type. However, there is little ..."
Abstract

Cited by 260 (24 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Cluster analysis is the automated search for groups of related observations in a data set. Most clustering done in practice is based largely on heuristic but intuitively reasonable procedures and most clustering methods available in commercial software are also of this type. However, there is little systematic guidance associated with these methods for solving important practical questions that arise in cluster analysis, such as \How many clusters are there?", "Which clustering method should be used?" and \How should outliers be handled?". We outline a general methodology for modelbased clustering that provides a principled statistical approach to these issues. We also show that this can be useful for other problems in multivariate analysis, such as discriminant analysis and multivariate density estimation. We give examples from medical diagnosis, mineeld detection, cluster recovery from noisy data, and spatial density estimation. Finally, we mention limitations of the methodology, a...
Efficient approximations for the marginal likelihood of Bayesian networks with hidden variables
 Machine Learning
, 1997
"... We discuss Bayesian methods for learning Bayesian networks when data sets are incomplete. In particular, we examine asymptotic approximations for the marginal likelihood of incomplete data given a Bayesian network. We consider the Laplace approximation and the less accurate but more efficient BIC/MD ..."
Abstract

Cited by 178 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We discuss Bayesian methods for learning Bayesian networks when data sets are incomplete. In particular, we examine asymptotic approximations for the marginal likelihood of incomplete data given a Bayesian network. We consider the Laplace approximation and the less accurate but more efficient BIC/MDL approximation. We also consider approximations proposed by Draper (1993) and Cheeseman and Stutz (1995). These approximations are as efficient as BIC/MDL, but their accuracy has not been studied in any depth. We compare the accuracy of these approximations under the assumption that the Laplace approximation is the most accurate. In experiments using synthetic data generated from discrete naiveBayes models having a hidden root node, we find that (1) the BIC/MDL measure is the least accurate, having a bias in favor of simple models, and (2) the Draper and CS measures are the most accurate. 1
Practical Bayesian Density Estimation Using Mixtures Of Normals
 Journal of the American Statistical Association
, 1995
"... this paper, we propose some solutions to these problems. Our goal is to come up with a simple, practical method for estimating the density. This is an interesting problem in its own right, as well as a first step towards solving other inference problems, such as providing more flexible distributions ..."
Abstract

Cited by 116 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper, we propose some solutions to these problems. Our goal is to come up with a simple, practical method for estimating the density. This is an interesting problem in its own right, as well as a first step towards solving other inference problems, such as providing more flexible distributions in hierarchical models. To see why the posterior is improper under the usual reference prior, we write the model in the following way. Let Z = (Z 1 ; : : : ; Z n ) and X = (X 1 ; : : : ; X n ). The Z
Calibration and Empirical Bayes Variable Selection
 Biometrika
, 1997
"... this paper, is that with F =2logp. This choice was proposed by Foster &G eorge (1994) where it was called the Risk Inflation Criterion (RIC) because it asymptotically minimises the maximum predictive risk inflation due to selection when X is orthogonal. This choice and its minimax property were also ..."
Abstract

Cited by 114 (19 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper, is that with F =2logp. This choice was proposed by Foster &G eorge (1994) where it was called the Risk Inflation Criterion (RIC) because it asymptotically minimises the maximum predictive risk inflation due to selection when X is orthogonal. This choice and its minimax property were also discovered independently by Donoho & Johnstone (1994) in the wavelet regression context, where they refer to it as the universal hard thresholding rule
Picking Statistically Valid and Early Simulation Points
, 2003
"... Modern architecture research relies heavily on detailed pipeline simulation. Simulating the full execution of an industry standard benchmark can take weeks to months to complete. To address this issue we have recently proposed using Simulation Points (found by only examining basic block execution fr ..."
Abstract

Cited by 105 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Modern architecture research relies heavily on detailed pipeline simulation. Simulating the full execution of an industry standard benchmark can take weeks to months to complete. To address this issue we have recently proposed using Simulation Points (found by only examining basic block execution frequency profiles) to increase the efficiency and accuracy of simulation. Simulation points are a small set of execution samples that when combined represent the complete execution of the program.
Benchmark Priors for Bayesian Model Averaging
 FORTHCOMING IN THE JOURNAL OF ECONOMETRICS
, 2001
"... In contrast to a posterior analysis given a particular sampling model, posterior model probabilities in the context of model uncertainty are typically rather sensitive to the specification of the prior. In particular, “diffuse” priors on modelspecific parameters can lead to quite unexpected consequ ..."
Abstract

Cited by 94 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In contrast to a posterior analysis given a particular sampling model, posterior model probabilities in the context of model uncertainty are typically rather sensitive to the specification of the prior. In particular, “diffuse” priors on modelspecific parameters can lead to quite unexpected consequences. Here we focus on the practically relevant situation where we need to entertain a (large) number of sampling models and we have (or wish to use) little or no subjective prior information. We aim at providing an “automatic” or “benchmark” prior structure that can be used in such cases. We focus on the Normal linear regression model with uncertainty in the choice of regressors. We propose a partly noninformative prior structure related to a Natural Conjugate gprior specification, where the amount of subjective information requested from the user is limited to the choice of a single scalar hyperparameter g0j. The consequences of different choices for g0j are examined. We investigate theoretical properties, such as consistency of the implied Bayesian procedure. Links with classical information criteria are provided. More importantly, we examine the finite sample implications of several choices of g0j in a simulation study. The use of the MC3 algorithm of Madigan and York (1995), combined with efficient coding in Fortran, makes it feasible to conduct large simulations. In addition to posterior criteria, we shall also compare the predictive performance of different priors. A classic example concerning the economics of crime will also be provided and contrasted with results in the literature. The main findings of the paper will lead us to propose a “benchmark” prior specification in a linear regression context with model uncertainty.
Learning the k in kmeans
 In Proc. 17th NIPS
, 2003
"... When clustering a dataset, the right number k of clusters to use is often not obvious, and choosing k automatically is a hard algorithmic problem. In this paper we present an improved algorithm for learning k while clustering. The Gmeans algorithm is based on a statistical test for the hypothesis t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 85 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
When clustering a dataset, the right number k of clusters to use is often not obvious, and choosing k automatically is a hard algorithmic problem. In this paper we present an improved algorithm for learning k while clustering. The Gmeans algorithm is based on a statistical test for the hypothesis that a subset of data follows a Gaussian distribution. Gmeans runs kmeans with increasing k in a hierarchical fashion until the test accepts the hypothesis that the data assigned to each kmeans center are Gaussian. Two key advantages are that the hypothesis test does not limit the covariance of the data and does not compute a full covariance matrix. Additionally, Gmeans only requires one intuitive parameter, the standard statistical significance level α. We present results from experiments showing that the algorithm works well, and better than a recent method based on the BIC penalty for model complexity. In these experiments, we show that the BIC is ineffective as a scoring function, since it does
The practical implementation of Bayesian model selection
 Institute of Mathematical Statistics
, 2001
"... In principle, the Bayesian approach to model selection is straightforward. Prior probability distributions are used to describe the uncertainty surrounding all unknowns. After observing the data, the posterior distribution provides a coherent post data summary of the remaining uncertainty which is r ..."
Abstract

Cited by 85 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In principle, the Bayesian approach to model selection is straightforward. Prior probability distributions are used to describe the uncertainty surrounding all unknowns. After observing the data, the posterior distribution provides a coherent post data summary of the remaining uncertainty which is relevant for model selection. However, the practical implementation of this approach often requires carefully tailored priors and novel posterior calculation methods. In this article, we illustrate some of the fundamental practical issues that arise for two different model selection problems: the variable selection problem for the linear model and the CART model selection problem.