跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+3新增论文
+3其中 AI 相关
+1已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-12 17:17 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-12 06:37各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-11 18:01 — 2026-11-12 18:01(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-12 17:17最近发现新增版本:2026-11-12 06:37库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-11 08:00

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

21,675 已收录论文18,323 AI 相关6,056 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-12 17:15(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.11303

NCCL-BOT: Closing the Loop on NCCL's Cost Model with Online Bandits

Hanan Shteingart, Amedeo Sapio, Chen Avin, Devendar Bureddy, Manjunath Gorentla Venkata, Srivatsan Krishnan, Shie Mannor, Sreeram Potluri 等 10 位作者

原文摘要

NCCL picks an algorithm-protocol pair for every collective from an analytic cost model (AUTO) that never sees a measured latency. The model is a strong prior but a brittle final decision: priced on forced-arm runs, its choice is exact on most contexts and badly wrong in a few. We built NCCL-BOT, a tuner plugin that closes the loop: a per-context bandit, warm-started from the model, learns from measured latencies. We replay a forced-arm H100 sweep, tuned at 4-8 nodes and scored at 16-32, and price the model's choice on the same forced arms; that sweep has no stock-NCCL run. The bandit cuts the contexts where the model's choice loses more than 10% from 19 to 1 (p99 103% to 9.9%, mean 6.1% to 1.6%; p=0.047 over nine scenarios after Holm correction). The prior and continued learning both matter: cold-started bandits, and committing after one probe of each arm, lose more on the mean in every scenario. Supervised selectors fit once on the same data and tuned with the same budget match the mean, and their heavier tail is not significant (7 against 1 contexts above 10%, p=0.06); at seen scales they match or beat online selection. With hyperparameters frozen from H100, UCB1 cuts AUTO's p99 from 60% to 23% and from 56% to 15% on two GB200 fabrics, but its contexts above 10% go from 16 to 8 on one and from 10 to 13 on the other, and scenario-level tests do not separate the two. Live, on two latency-emulated node sets of one H100 system with one run per policy, the learners repair most of a gross AUTO error on one (selection loss 31% to 6-8% for deterministic Greedy and UCB1; average all-reduce bandwidth 1.18-1.24x stock) but average 0.94-0.99x stock on the other, and on both lose to stock below 1 MiB (on the first through plugin overhead); on H100 the cost model is exact there offline, so small sizes can be left to it. We do not show a net end-to-end win.

cs.DC · cs.LG