Multicore-enabling the MPJ express messaging library

With the transition to multicore processors almost complete, the parallel processing community is seeking efficient ways to port legacy message passing applications on shared memory and multicore processors. MPJ Express is our reference implementation of Message Passing Interface (MPI)-like bindings for the Java language. Starting with the current release, the MPJ Express software can be configured in two modes: the multicore and the cluster mode. In the multicore mode, parallel Java applications execute on shared memory or multicore processors. In the cluster mode, Java applications parallelized using MPJ Express can be executed on distributed memory platforms like compute clusters and clouds. The multicore device has been implemented using Java threads in order to satisfy two main design goals of portability and performance. We also discuss the challenges of integrating the multicore device in the MPJ Express software. This turned out to be a challenging task because the parallel application executes in a single JVM in the multicore mode. On the contrary in the cluster mode, the parallel user application executes in multiple JVMs. Due to these inherent architectural differences between the two modes, the MPJ Express runtime is modified to ensure correct semantics of the parallel program. Towards the end, we compare performance of MPJ Express (multicore mode) with other C and Java message passing libraries---including mpiJava, MPJ/Ibis, MPICH2, MPJ Express (cluster mode)---on shared memory and multicore processors. We found out that MPJ Express performs signicantly better in the multicore mode than in the cluster mode. Not only this but the MPJ Express software also performs better in comparison to other Java messaging libraries including mpiJava and MPJ/Ibis when used in the multicore mode on shared memory or multicore processors. We also demonstrate effectiveness of the MPJ Express multicore device in Gadget-2, which is a massively parallel astrophysics N-body siimulation code.

PDM 2006: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Data Mining

Recently major processor manufacturers have announced a dramatic shift in their paradigm to increase computing power over the coming years. Instead of focusing on faster clock speeds and more powerful single core CPUs, the trend clearly goes towards multi core systems. This will also result in a paradigm shift for the development of algorithms for computationally expensive tasks, such as data mining applications. Obviously, work on parallel algorithms is not new per se but concentrated efforts in the many application domains are still missing. Multi-core systems, but also clusters of workstations and even large-scale distributed computing infrastructures provide new opportunities and pose new challenges for the design of parallel and distributed algorithms. Since data mining and machine learning systems rely on high performance computing systems, research on the corresponding algorithms must be on the forefront of parallel algorithm research in order to keep pushing data mining and machine learning applications to be more powerful and, especially for the former, interactive. To bring together researchers and practitioners working in this exciting field, a workshop on parallel data mining was organized as part of PKDD/ECML 2006 (Berlin, Germany). The six contributions selected for the program describe various aspects of data mining and machine learning approaches featuring low to high degrees of parallelism: The first contribution focuses the classic problem of distributed association rule mining and focuses on communication efficiency to improve the state of the art. After this a parallelization technique for speeding up decision tree construction by means of thread-level parallelism for shared memory systems is presented. The next paper discusses the design of a parallel approach for dis- tributed memory systems of the frequent subgraphs mining problem. This approach is based on a hierarchical communication topology to solve issues related to multi-domain computational envi- ronments. The forth paper describes the combined use and the customization of software packages to facilitate a top down parallelism in the tuning of Support Vector Machines (SVM) and the next contribution presents an interesting idea concerning parallel training of Conditional Random Fields (CRFs) and motivates their use in labeling sequential data. The last contribution finally focuses on very efficient feature selection. It describes a parallel algorithm for feature selection from random subsets. Selecting the papers included in this volume would not have been possible without the help of an international Program Committee that has provided detailed reviews for each paper. We would like to also thank Matthew Otey who helped with publicity for the workshop.

fMRI delineation of working memory for emotional prosody in the brain: commonalities with the lexico-semantic emotion network

Decoding emotional prosody is crucial for successful social interactions, and continuous monitoring of emotional intent via prosody requires working memory. It has been proposed by Ross and others that emotional prosody cognitions in the right hemisphere are organized in an analogous fashion to propositional language functions in the left hemisphere. This study aimed to test the applicability of this model in the context of prefrontal cortex working memory functions. BOLD response data were therefore collected during performance of two emotional working memory tasks by participants undergoing fMRI. In the prosody task, participants identified the emotion conveyed in pre-recorded sentences, and working memory load was manipulated in the style of an N-back task. In the matched lexico-semantic task, participants identified the emotion conveyed by sentence content. Block-design neuroimaging data were analyzed parametrically with SPM5. At first, working memory for emotional prosody appeared to be right-lateralized in the PFC, however, further analyses revealed that it shared much bilateral prefrontal functional neuroanatomy with working memory for lexico-semantic emotion. Supplementary separate analyses of males and females suggested that these language functions were less bilateral in females, but their inclusion did not alter the direction of laterality. It is concluded that Ross et al.'s model is not applicable to prefrontal cortex working memory functions, that evidence that working memory cannot be subdivided in prefrontal cortex according to material type is increased, and that incidental working memory demands may explain the frontal lobe involvement in emotional prosody comprehension as revealed by neuroimaging studies. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Constrained principal component analysis reveals functionally connected load-dependent networks involved in multiple stages of working memory

Constrained principal component analysis (CPCA) with a finite impulse response (FIR) basis set was used to reveal functionally connected networks and their temporal progression over a multistage verbal working memory trial in which memory load was varied. Four components were extracted, and all showed statistically significant sensitivity to the memory load manipulation. Additionally, two of the four components sustained this peak activity, both for approximately 3 s (Components 1 and 4). The functional networks that showed sustained activity were characterized by increased activations in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and left supramarginal gyrus, and decreased activations in the primary auditory cortex and "default network" regions. The functional networks that did not show sustained activity were instead dominated by increased activation in occipital cortex, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, sensori-motor cortical regions, and superior parietal cortex. The response shapes suggest that although all four components appear to be invoked at encoding, the two sustained-peak components are likely to be additionally involved in the delay period. Our investigation provides a unique view of the contributions made by a network of brain regions over the course of a multiple-stage working memory trial.