4.4 Article

Load balancing for multi-threaded PDES of stochastic reaction-diffusion in neurons

期刊

JOURNAL OF SIMULATION
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 267-284

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1057/s41273-016-0033-x

关键词

stochastic neuronal simulation; multi-threaded PDES; load balancing; window control; Q-Learning; simulated annealing

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61170048]
  3. State Key Laboratory of High Performance Computing of National University of Defense Technology of China [201303-05]
  4. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of High Education of China [20124307110017]
  5. U.S. National Institutes of Health [R01MH086638, T15LM007056]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chemical reactions and molecular diffusion in a neuron play an important role in the transmission of signals within a neuron. Discrete event stochastic simulation of the chemical reactions and diffusion provides a more detailed view of the molecular dynamics within a neuron than continuous simulation. As part of the NEURON project we developed a multi-threaded optimistic PDES simulator, Neuron Time Warp-Multi Thread, for these reaction-diffusion models. We used NTW-MT to simulate a calcium wave model due to its importance to the neuroscience community and representativeness of the types of reaction-diffusion problems which need to be solved in neuroscience. During the course of our experiments we observed a decided need for load balancing and window control to achieve large-scale runs. In this paper, we improved the Q-Learning and Simulated Annealing load balancing algorithm according to characteristics of reaction and diffusion model to address both of these issues. We evaluated the algorithms by various parameters in various scales, and our results showed that (1) the algorithm improves the execution time for small simulations by up to 31% (using Q-Learning) and 19% (using SA) and (2) the SA approach is more suitable for larger models, decreasing the execution time by 41%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据