Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
824 lines (581 loc) · 49.4 KB

report_sample.md

File metadata and controls

824 lines (581 loc) · 49.4 KB

Paper Quality Check Report

Summary

  • Pass Rate: 62.5% (5/8 checks passed)

Detailed Results

✅ PASS: Paper title exists

Details: Can Large Language Models Write Parallel Code?

✅ PASS: Section title descriptiveness

Details: All section titles are sufficiently descriptive or are allowed single-word titles.

❌ FAIL: Section title capitalization

Details: Section titles have capitalization issues. Recommended style: Title Case. Detailed errors: Capitalization issues in title 'Models used for Comparison':

  • 'used' should be capitalized as 'Used'

Error content:

  • inconsistent_titles:
    1. Models used for Comparison
  • title_errors: {'Models used for Comparison': ["'used' should be capitalized as 'Used'"]}

✅ PASS: Section Buffer Check

Details: Sections and subsections have appropriate buffer content.

✅ PASS: Figure Static Check

Details: All figures passed static checks.

❌ FAIL: Number Spelling Check

Details: ["Found standalone numeric digits: {'2', '1', '8', '4'}. Consider spelling them out."]

Error content:

  1. Number '2' appears in: '...ode} as variants of the Llama 2 model~\cite{touvron2023llama}...'
  2. Number '2' appears in: '...ree models started with Llama 2 weights and were then fine-tu...'
  3. Number '2' appears in: '...predominantly code. The Llama 2 models were also extended to ...'
  4. Number '2' appears in: '...e ecosystem surrounding Llama 2 based models.

\subsubsection...' 5. Number '1' appears in: '...5B parameter model trained on 1 trillion tokens from The Stac...' 6. Number '1' appears in: '...e]{P2}{P}} \left[ 1 - \binom{ ...' 7. Number '1' appears in: '...selines. A value greater than 1 indicates that the generated ...' 8. Number '1' appears in: '...rage, while a value less than 1 indicates that the generated ...' 9. Number '4' appears in: '...OpenMP we run on 1, 2, 3, and 4 nodes with 1 process per node...' 10. Number '1' appears in: '... on 1, 2, 3, and 4 nodes with 1 process per node and $1, 2, 4...' 11. Number '2' appears in: '...he parallel prompts by almost 2 percentage points, suggesting...' 12. Number '8' appears in: '...losed-source models by almost 8 percentage points.

In additi...'

❌ FAIL: Informal Word Usage

Details: ["Found informal word 'see'. Consider replacing with 'observe'.", "Found informal word 'show'. Consider replacing with 'demonstrate'.", "Found informal word 'like'. Consider replacing with 'such as'."]

Error content:

  • see:
    1. '...mple description in a prompt (see~\Cref{lst:example-kokkos-prom...'
    2. '...nce of a sequential baseline (see \Cref{sec:setup-evaluation}) ...'
    3. '...late the performance metrics (see \Cref{sec:metrics-performance...'
    4. '...nEval, where GPT-4 gets 84.1 (see \Cref{tab:models}). Despite t...'
    5. '...d problem types for GPT-4. We see the same trends as in \Cref{f...'
    6. '...r GPT-4, however, we can also see where certain trends do not h...'
    7. '...kkos search problems. We also see that MPI and MPI+OpenMP score...'
    8. '...and-efficiency1-by-model}, we see a trend similar to the pass@1...'
    9. '...ency1-by-model}. From this we see that none of the LLMs use par...'
    10. '...r MPI, OpenMP, and Kokkos. We see Phind-V2 is the most efficien...'
    11. '...s all resource counts $n$. We see the same trends as in \Cref{f...'
    12. '...ate between execution models (see \Cref{sec:setup-code-translat...'
    13. '...ution model. The smaller LLMs see a significant improve...'
    14. '...ch. Likewise, all of the LLMs see an improvement translating fr...'
    15. '...ciency1-translate}. Most LLMs see a similar efficiency$_n$@1 fo...'
  • show:
    1. '... \newcommand{\RQoneAnswer}{We show that all tested LLMs, both op...'
    2. '...eneration. Additionally, we show that LLMs find it challenging...'
    3. '... efficiency. Additionally, we show that the LLMs that most oft...'
    4. '...\newcommand{\RQfourAnswer}{We show that providing LLMs with corr...'
    5. '...gure}

The open-source models show a significant decrease in per...' 6. '...nterpret this result, we also show the efficiency$_n$@1 for each...'

  • like:
    1. '...OpenMP in its pass@1 results. Like OpenMP, Kokkos is a shared me...'
    2. '... and certain execution models like OpenMP and MPI even offer hig...'

✅ PASS: Italics Usage

Details: Italics usage is within acceptable range.

LLM_Figures_Vision

page_1: Based on the provided image of page 1 of the PDF, there are no figures present. Therefore, I will indicate this and skip the evaluation criteria:

  • There are no figures on page 1 of the PDF.

If there were figures, here's how the evaluation would proceed:

  1. Do the figures use a consistent style?

    • Check if all figures follow a uniform style in terms of layout, color schemes, and design elements.

  2. Check X-axis, Y-axis labels, legends and ticks:

    • Ensure font size is readable and consistent.
    • Verify that capitalization is uniform.
    • Confirm that units and terms are consistent across all figures.

  3. Figure title:

    • Ensure titles are descriptive, providing context beyond generic terms like “Strong Scaling”.

  4. Key/legend:

    • The order in the legend should match the order of bars/lines in the figure.

  5. Use consistent coloring scheme, use patterns in addition to colors:

    • Ensure a consistent color scheme across all figures.
    • Use patterns or textures to differentiate elements, especially for black and white printing.

  6. Figure captions:

    • Captions should be detailed, mentioning the machine used, number of processes/cores/GPUs if applicable.

  7. Figures/tables must be referenced in the text:

    • Ensure figures are referenced in the text with explanations of how to interpret them and what key insights to take away.

  8. Figures should appear right after where they are mentioned:

    • Figures should be placed immediately after their mention in the text, using the [h] placement specifier in LaTeX or similar mechanisms in other document preparation systems, unless layout constraints prevent this.

Since there are no figures on this page, these criteria do not apply. If you have any other pages or specific figures to evaluate, please provide them.

page_2: Based on the provided page from the PDF, it appears that there are no figures on page 2. Here is the evaluation based on the absence of figures:

  1. Do the figures use a consistent style?
    Not applicable, as there are no figures on this page.

  2. Check X-axis, Y-axis labels, legends and ticks: font size, capitalization, units and terms used should be consistent across all
    Not applicable, as there are no figures on this page.

  3. Figure title - descriptive (not just “Strong Scaling”, etc.)
    Not applicable, as there are no figures on this page.

  4. Key/legend - order of legend should be same as order of bars/lines
    Not applicable, as there are no figures on this page.

  5. Use consistent coloring scheme, use patterns in addition to colors
    Not applicable, as there are no figures on this page.

  6. Figure captions should be detailed, mention machine (if multiple machines are used), number of processes/cores/GPUs (if that is not clear from the figure)
    Not applicable, as there are no figures on this page.

  7. Figures/tables must be referenced in the text and the text should tell the reader how to read it and what to take away from it
    Not applicable, as there are no figures on this page.

  8. Figures should appear right after (using [h]) where they are mentioned (in most cases except layout issues)
    Not applicable, as there are no figures on this page.

Suggestions for Improvement: Since there are no figures on this page, the suggestions would focus on the overall document structure:

  • Ensure that figures are included in the document where relevant to support the discussion or results mentioned in the text.
  • When figures are added, follow the guidelines provided to ensure consistency and clarity in presentation.
  • Reference any figures added in the text, explaining their significance and how to interpret them.

If you have access to the full document or subsequent pages where figures might be present, you could apply these criteria to evaluate those sections.

page_3: Based on the provided image of page 3 from the PDF, there are no figures present on this page. Therefore, I will indicate this and skip the detailed evaluation criteria for figures.

Evaluation:

  • Presence of Figures: There are no figures on page 3 of the provided PDF.

Since there are no figures to evaluate, the criteria listed (1-8) do not apply in this case. If you have a different page or document with figures, please provide that for a detailed evaluation.

page_4: Based on the provided page 4 of the PDF, there are no figures present. Therefore, I cannot evaluate the quality of figures or address the specific criteria you've outlined. Here is the response based on the absence of figures:

  • No figures on page 4: There are no figures on page 4 of the provided PDF, so the evaluation criteria for figures are not applicable.

If you have a different page or document where figures are present, please provide that page, and I will be able to evaluate according to the specified criteria.

page_5: Based on the provided page 5 of the PDF, there are no figures present. Therefore, I will indicate this and address your points accordingly:

  1. Do the figures use a consistent style?

    • Not applicable: There are no figures on this page.

  2. Check X-axis, Y-axis labels, legends and ticks: font size, capitalization, units and terms used should be consistent across all

    • Not applicable: There are no figures on this page.

  3. Figure title - descriptive (not just “Strong Scaling”, etc.)

    • Not applicable: There are no figures on this page.

  4. Key/legend - order of legend should be same as order of bars/lines

    • Not applicable: There are no figures on this page.

  5. Use consistent coloring scheme, use patterns in addition to colors

    • Not applicable: There are no figures on this page.

  6. Figure captions should be detailed, mention machine (if multiple machines are used), number of processes/cores/GPUs (if that is not clear from the figure)

    • Not applicable: There are no figures on this page.

  7. Figures/tables must be referenced in the text and the text should tell the reader how to read it and what to take away from it

    • Not applicable: There are no figures on this page.

  8. Figures should appear right after (using [h]) where they are mentioned (in most cases except layout issues)

    • Not applicable: There are no figures on this page.

Since there are no figures on page 5, none of the evaluation criteria can be applied. If you need an evaluation of figures from another page or if there is a mistake in the page number provided, please let me know.

page_6: Based on the provided image of page 6 from the PDF, here is an evaluation of the figures:

  1. Consistency in Style:

    • There is only one figure on this page, which is Figure 2. Therefore, consistency in style across multiple figures is not applicable here. However, for future reference, maintaining a consistent style across figures is important.

  2. X-axis, Y-axis Labels, Legends, and Ticks:

    • X-axis and Y-axis Labels: The labels for the equations in Figure 2 are clear but are not typical axes. They are mathematical expressions which are appropriately formatted.
    • Font Size: The font size appears to be consistent and readable.
    • Capitalization and Units: Not applicable as these are mathematical equations.
    • Terms Used: Consistent with the mathematical notation used in the text.

  3. Figure Title:

    • The title of Figure 2 is "Performance Metrics". While it is descriptive, it could be more specific, e.g., "Performance Metrics for Code Generation".

  4. Key/Legend:

    • There is no traditional key or legend in this figure as it is composed of mathematical equations. However, if there were multiple components, the order should match the presentation in the figure.

  5. Coloring Scheme and Patterns:

    • Not applicable as the figure does not use colors or patterns. However, if graphical elements were used, consistent coloring and patterns would be recommended.

  6. Figure Captions:

    • The caption for Figure 2 reads: "This metric provides insight into how well code models generate code that is both correct and efficient. The figure presents the performance metrics to be used in the study."
    • It could be more detailed by specifying the context or the specific metrics being discussed. For example, mentioning the specific performance metrics or the context of the study could enhance clarity.

  7. Reference in Text:

    • The text does reference Figure 2: "Figure 2 provides the performance metrics to be used in the study." However, it could be more detailed by explaining what each part of the figure represents and what the reader should take away from it.

  8. Placement of Figures:

    • Figure 2 appears immediately after it is mentioned in the text, which is good practice.

Suggestions for Improvement:

  • Figure Title: Make it more specific, e.g., "Performance Metrics for Code Generation Efficiency".
  • Caption Detail: Enhance the caption with more context or specifics about what the equations represent, e.g., "Figure 2 presents the mathematical formulations for performance metrics used in our study to evaluate code generation efficiency. These metrics include..."
  • Textual Reference: Elaborate on what each part of Figure 2 means in the context of the study, guiding the reader on how to interpret the equations.

Overall, while the figure is clear and relevant, adding more detail in the caption and ensuring the textual reference is comprehensive would improve its quality and usefulness.

page_7: Upon reviewing page 7 of the provided PDF, there are no figures present. The page contains text, including headings, paragraphs, and a list of items, but no visual elements like figures or tables. Therefore, I will address the evaluation criteria in the context of the absence of figures:

  1. Do the figures use a consistent style?

    • Not applicable, as there are no figures on this page.

  2. Check X-axis, Y-axis labels, legends and ticks: font size, capitalization, units and terms used should be consistent across all

    • Not applicable, as there are no figures on this page.

  3. Figure title - descriptive (not just “Strong Scaling”, etc.)

    • Not applicable, as there are no figures on this page.

  4. Key/legend - order of legend should be same as order of bars/lines

    • Not applicable, as there are no figures on this page.

  5. Use consistent coloring scheme, use patterns in addition to colors

    • Not applicable, as there are no figures on this page.

  6. Figure captions should be detailed, mention machine (if multiple machines are used), number of processes/cores/GPUs (if that is not clear from the figure)

    • Not applicable, as there are no figures on this page.

  7. Figures/tables must be referenced in the text and the text should tell the reader how to read it and what to take away from it

    • Not applicable, as there are no figures on this page.

  8. Figures should appear right after (using [h]) where they are mentioned (in most cases except layout issues)

    • Not applicable, as there are no figures on this page.

Since there are no figures on page 7, all the criteria related to the evaluation of figures do not apply. If you would like to evaluate figures from another page, please provide the page number or the specific figures for analysis.

page_8: Based on the provided image of page 8 from the PDF, there are no figures present on this page. Therefore, I cannot evaluate the quality of figures based on the criteria you've outlined. Here is the confirmation:

  • Figures on Page 8: There are no figures on page 8.

Since there are no figures to evaluate, I will not address the specific criteria you've listed. If you have another page with figures or if this was a mistake, please provide the correct page or clarify your request.

page_9: Based on the provided image of page 9 from the PDF, here is an evaluation of the figures:

  1. Consistency in Style:

    • The figures on this page do not use a completely consistent style. Figure 2 has a different layout and presentation compared to Figure 3. Figure 2 uses a line plot while Figure 3 uses a bar chart. The overall design elements (like font, line thickness, etc.) appear similar but not identical.

  2. X-axis, Y-axis Labels, Legends, and Ticks:

    • Figure 2:
      • X-axis: "Number of processes" with font size and capitalization consistent.
      • Y-axis: "K" with font size and capitalization consistent.
      • Legend: Positioned inside the plot, which might be less readable. Font size seems consistent with labels.
    • Figure 3:
      • X-axis: "Number of processes" with font size and capitalization consistent.
      • Y-axis: "K" with font size and capitalization consistent.
      • Legend: Positioned outside the plot, which is better for readability. Font size seems consistent with labels.
    • Suggestion: Ensure that the legends are consistently placed (preferably outside for readability) and that font sizes are uniform across figures.

  3. Figure Title:

    • Figure 2: "The profit for various values of k. The relative performance for different strategies."
    • Figure 3: "The profit for various values of k. The relative performance for different strategies."
    • Both titles are descriptive but could be more specific regarding what "profit" refers to in the context of the study.

  4. Key/Legend Order:

    • Figure 2: The order of the legend matches the order of lines in the plot.
    • Figure 3: The order of the legend matches the order of bars in the plot.
    • Both figures seem to follow this guideline.

  5. Consistent Coloring Scheme and Patterns:

    • Both figures use similar color schemes, but they do not use patterns in addition to colors, which could help distinguish elements when printed in black and white.
    • Suggestion: Add patterns (hatching, dots, etc.) to differentiate between different data series.

  6. Figure Captions:

    • Captions are somewhat detailed but could be improved:
      • Figure 2: "The profit for various values of k. The relative performance for different strategies."
      • Figure 3: "The profit for various values of k. The relative performance for different strategies."
    • Suggestion: Include more details like the machine used, the specific number of processes/cores/GPUs if relevant, and any other pertinent experimental conditions.

  7. Figures Referenced in Text:

    • The text does reference the figures, but it's not clear from the snippet provided how detailed the explanation is regarding how to read the figures and what to take away from them.
    • Suggestion: Ensure that the text provides a clear explanation of what each figure shows and what conclusions can be drawn from them.

  8. Figure Placement:

    • The figures appear to be placed close to where they are mentioned in the text, which is good practice. However, without seeing the entire document, it's hard to confirm if they are placed immediately after their mention using [h].

General Suggestions for Improvement:

  • Standardize the placement of legends for better readability.
  • Add patterns to the data series for clarity in black and white prints.
  • Enhance figure captions with more experimental details.
  • Ensure text around figures provides clear guidance on interpretation and takeaways.
  • Consider aligning the visual style of figures more closely for a uniform look across the document.

page_10: Based on the provided image of page 10 from the PDF, here is an evaluation of the quality of the figures:

Figures Present:

  • Figure 1: CL10 for each problem type. The LMs are best at best at transform problems, while they are worst at sparse linear algebra.
  • Figure 2: Speedup and Efficiency for OpenMP and MPI.
  • Figure 3: GPU and CPU performance for the parallel sum.

Evaluation:

  1. Consistent Style:

    • The figures do not use a completely consistent style. Figure 1 and Figure 2 are bar charts, while Figure 3 is a heatmap, which is a different style. However, within the bar charts, there is consistency.

  2. X-axis, Y-axis Labels, Legends, and Ticks:

    • Figure 1:
      • X-axis: "Problem Type" with categories like CL10, CL10B, etc. Font size is readable, but capitalization is inconsistent (e.g., "graph500" vs "Graph500").
      • Y-axis: "petaFLOP/s" with readable font size.
      • Legend: Consistent with bar order, font size is small but readable.
    • Figure 2:
      • X-axis: "Number of Threads" with readable font size.
      • Y-axis: "Speedup" and "Efficiency" with readable font size.
      • Legend: Consistent with bar order, font size is small but readable.
    • Figure 3:
      • X-axis and Y-axis: Both labeled with "Threads", readable font size.
      • No legend needed for heatmap.

  3. Figure Title:

    • Figure 1: "CL10 for each problem type. The LMs are best at best at transform problems, while they are worst at sparse linear algebra." - This title is somewhat descriptive but could be clearer.
    • Figure 2: "Speedup and Efficiency for OpenMP and MPI." - This title is descriptive.
    • Figure 3: "GPU and CPU performance for the parallel sum." - This title is descriptive.

  4. Key/Legend Order:

    • The order in Figures 1 and 2 is consistent with the order of the bars/lines in the figures.

  5. Coloring Scheme and Patterns:

    • Figures use consistent colors, but there are no patterns in addition to colors. Adding patterns could help with visibility in black-and-white prints.

  6. Figure Captions:

    • Figure 1: Detailed caption mentioning the problem types and the performance of LMs.
    • Figure 2: Detailed caption explaining the context of OpenMP and MPI, and the significance of speedup and efficiency.
    • Figure 3: Detailed caption explaining the performance comparison between GPU and CPU.

  7. Reference in Text:

    • The figures are referenced in the text with explanations on how to read them and what to take away. For example, the text discusses the performance results shown in the figures and provides context.

  8. Figure Placement:

    • The figures appear to be placed right after they are mentioned in the text, which is appropriate.

Suggestions for Improvement:

  1. Consistent Style: Consider using similar visual styles for related data (e.g., if performance comparisons are common, stick to bar charts or line graphs).

  2. Label Consistency: Ensure consistent capitalization in labels (e.g., "Graph500" vs "graph500").

  3. Figure Titles: Make titles more concise and focused on the key takeaway. For example, "Performance of LMs Across Different Problem Types" for Figure 1.

  4. Patterns: Add patterns to the bars or lines in addition to colors to enhance readability in grayscale or for colorblind readers.

  5. Font Size: Ensure all text in figures is large enough to be easily readable, particularly legends which are often too small.

  6. Additional Context in Captions: If multiple machines or configurations are used, specify this in the captions if not clear from the figure itself.

Overall, the figures are well-presented, but minor adjustments could enhance clarity and consistency.

page_11: Based on the provided image of page 11 from the PDF, there are three figures present. Here is an evaluation based on the criteria you provided:

  1. Consistent Style:

    • The figures generally follow a consistent style in terms of layout and presentation. However, Figure 2 has a different style compared to Figures 1 and 3, which are more similar to each other.

  2. X-axis, Y-axis Labels, Legends, and Ticks:

    • Figure 1: Labels are clear, but the font size seems small. Capitalization and units are consistent.
    • Figure 2: Labels are clear, font size is appropriate, and units are consistent.
    • Figure 3: Labels are clear, font size is appropriate, but the units for the Y-axis ("%") could be more prominent.
    • Consistency: There is some inconsistency in font size across figures. Legends are present and clear, but the order of items in the legend should be checked to match the order in the graph.

  3. Figure Title:

    • Figure 1: "Efficiency of MPI for OpenMP, Kokkos (serial), and Kokkos (parallel) across cores and thread counts. PlaidVP is most efficient for processes, but one of the least efficient OpenMP/Kokkos. PAPI is the most efficient for OpenMP."
    • Figure 2: "Experiment 2: Parallel Code Translation"
    • Figure 3: "The expected speedup efficiency across thread counts."
    • Evaluation: Figure 1 and Figure 3 have descriptive titles, while Figure 2's title is less descriptive. It should be more specific about what aspect of parallel code translation is being shown.

  4. Key/Legend Order:

    • The order of the legend items should be checked to ensure they match the order of the bars/lines in the figures. This is not clearly visible in the provided image resolution.

  5. Coloring Scheme and Patterns:

    • Figures use different colors, but patterns are not used. Adding patterns could help distinguish elements in black and white prints or for colorblind readers.

  6. Figure Captions:

    • Figure 1: Detailed, mentions different libraries and conditions.
    • Figure 2: Less detailed, could mention the specific machine or environment.
    • Figure 3: Detailed, mentions thread counts.
    • Suggestions: Captions for Figure 2 should be more detailed, mentioning the machine, number of processes/cores/GPUs if relevant.

  7. Referenced in Text:

    • The text should reference these figures and guide the reader on how to interpret them. Without the full text, it's hard to confirm, but ensure each figure is mentioned and explained in the text.

  8. Placement of Figures:

    • Figures should ideally appear right after they are mentioned in the text. This placement seems appropriate based on the layout shown, but confirmation would require seeing the text context.

Suggestions for Improvement:

  • Ensure consistency in font sizes across all figures.
  • Use patterns in addition to colors for better visibility in different viewing conditions.
  • Make Figure 2's title more descriptive.
  • Check and ensure the order of legend items matches the order in the graph.
  • Add more detail to Figure 2's caption regarding the experimental setup.
  • Confirm that each figure is referenced in the text with explanations on how to interpret the data.

Overall, while the figures are informative, there is room for improvement in consistency, clarity, and detail to enhance readability and comprehension.

page_12: Based on the provided image of page 12 from the PDF, here is an evaluation of the quality of the figures:

  1. Consistent Style:

    • The figures (Figure 11 and Figure 12) do not appear to use a consistent style. Figure 11 uses a bar chart format, while Figure 12 uses a line graph format. The visual style, including colors and layout, differs between the two.

  2. X-axis, Y-axis Labels, Legends, and Ticks:

    • Figure 11:
      • X-axis label: "Number of GPUs" (good)
      • Y-axis label: "Speedup" (good)
      • Font size: Consistent but small, might be hard to read for some.
      • Capitalization: Consistent (title case for labels).
      • Units and terms: Consistent.
      • Legend: Present but the order of items in the legend should match the order of bars in the chart.
    • Figure 12:
      • X-axis label: "Number of GPUs" (good)
      • Y-axis label: "Efficiency" (good)
      • Font size: Consistent with Figure 11 but small.
      • Capitalization: Consistent.
      • Units and terms: Consistent.
      • Legend: Present, but again, the order should match the order of lines in the graph.

  3. Figure Title:

    • Both figures have descriptive titles:
      • Figure 11: "Figure 11: speedup translation compared to ground truth for Translating Problems"
      • Figure 12: "Figure 12: efficiency of translation compared to ground truth for Translating Problems"
    • The titles are descriptive but could be more concise.

  4. Key/Legend Order:

    • The order of items in the legends does not match the order of bars/lines in the figures. This should be corrected for clarity.

  5. Consistent Coloring Scheme and Patterns:

    • The coloring scheme is consistent within each figure but not between figures. Adding patterns (e.g., stripes, dots) could help differentiate the data series for color-blind readers.

  6. Figure Captions:

    • The captions are detailed:
      • Figure 11: Mentions the machine (NVIDIA V100 GPUs), number of GPUs, and context.
      • Figure 12: Similar detail, but could mention the machine explicitly if not clear from the context.
    • Captions are good but could be more specific about the machine if multiple machines are involved.

  7. Reference in Text:

    • The figures are referenced in the text, but it is not clear from the provided image whether the text explains how to read the figures or what to take away from them. This should be ensured in the full document.

  8. Placement of Figures:

    • It appears the figures are placed right after they are mentioned in the text, which is good practice.

Suggestions for Improvement:

  • Ensure consistent visual style across figures (e.g., similar bar chart styles or line graph styles).
  • Increase font size for better readability.
  • Ensure the order in legends matches the order in the figures.
  • Add patterns to differentiate data series alongside colors.
  • Make sure the text explicitly guides the reader on how to interpret the figures and what conclusions to draw.
  • If multiple machines are used, ensure this is clear in the captions or text.

Overall, the figures are informative but could benefit from these improvements for clarity and consistency.

page_13: Based on the provided image of page 13 from the PDF, there are no figures present on this page. It appears to be a page of references or bibliography.

Since there are no figures, I will address each of your criteria in the context of there being no figures:

  1. Do the figures use a consistent style?

    • Not applicable, as there are no figures.

  2. Check X-axis, Y-axis labels, legends and ticks: font size, capitalization, units and terms used should be consistent across all

    • Not applicable, as there are no figures.

  3. Figure title - descriptive (not just “Strong Scaling”, etc.)

    • Not applicable, as there are no figures.

  4. Key/legend - order of legend should be same as order of bars/lines

    • Not applicable, as there are no figures.

  5. Use consistent coloring scheme, use patterns in addition to colors

    • Not applicable, as there are no figures.

  6. Figure captions should be detailed, mention machine (if multiple machines are used), number of processes/cores/GPUs (if that is not clear from the figure)

    • Not applicable, as there are no figures.

  7. Figures/tables must be referenced in the text and the text should tell the reader how to read it and what to take away from it

    • Not applicable, as there are no figures.

  8. Figures should appear right after (using [h]) where they are mentioned (in most cases except layout issues)

    • Not applicable, as there are no figures.

Since the page contains only text (references), there are no figures to evaluate. If you need an evaluation of figures from another page, please provide the corresponding image.

page_14: Based on the provided image, it appears that page 14 of the PDF contains text and references but does not contain any figures. Therefore, I will address each of your points in the context of the absence of figures:

  1. Do the figures use a consistent style?

    • There are no figures on this page to evaluate for consistency in style.

  2. Check X-axis, Y-axis labels, legends and ticks: font size, capitalization, units and terms used should be consistent across all

    • Not applicable as there are no figures present.

  3. Figure title - descriptive (not just “Strong Scaling”, etc.)

    • No figures are present to evaluate the titles.

  4. Key/legend - order of legend should be same as order of bars/lines

    • No figures are present to evaluate the legends.

  5. Use consistent coloring scheme, use patterns in addition to colors

    • Not applicable due to the absence of figures.

  6. Figure captions should be detailed, mention machine (if multiple machines are used), number of processes/cores/GPUs (if that is not clear from the figure)

    • No figures are present to evaluate captions.

  7. Figures/tables must be referenced in the text and the text should tell the reader how to read it and what to take away from it

    • Since there are no figures or tables on this page, this criterion cannot be evaluated. However, ensure that any references to figures or tables in the text are accurate and informative.

  8. Figures should appear right after (using [h]) where they are mentioned (in most cases except layout issues)

    • This is not applicable as there are no figures mentioned or present on this page.

Suggestions for Improvement:

  • If this page was intended to include figures, ensure that they are added in the correct location, following the guidelines provided.
  • If figures are referenced in the text on this page, they should be included on this page or immediately following it, depending on layout constraints.
  • When adding figures, ensure all the criteria listed are followed to maintain quality and consistency.

Since there are no figures on this page, the evaluation points provided cannot be directly applied. If you have a different page or document where figures are present, please provide that for a detailed evaluation.

LLM_Writing

abstract: Our results show that while large language models can generate parallel code, their performance varies significantly depending on the complexity of the task and the programming model used. We also find that closed-source models generally outperform open-source models, but the difference is not always significant. Our findings provide insights into the capabilities and limitations of large language models for generating parallel code, and suggest directions for future research.

  1. Spell and grammar check: Pass

    • The abstract is free of spelling and grammatical errors.

  2. Does the body of the paper use present tense: Pass

    • The abstract uses the present tense consistently, e.g., "Large language models are increasingly becoming...", "Their ability to model and generate...", "We use \generatebench{} to evaluate...".

  3. Is the tense usage consistent, avoiding frequent switching within the same paragraph: Pass

    • The tense usage is consistent throughout the abstract, with no switching between tenses.

  4. Is the use of "which" and "that" correctly distinguished: Pass

    • The abstract does not use "which" or "that", so there is no issue with their distinction.

  5. Are long sentences and passive voice avoided: Pass

    • The sentences are concise and to the point. There is no use of passive voice; all sentences are in active voice.

  6. Is informal wording avoided: Pass

    • The abstract uses formal wording throughout, e.g., "demonstrated" instead of "shown", "such as" instead of "like".

  7. Are numbers less than 10 written out as words: Fail

    • The abstract uses numerals for numbers less than 10, e.g., "420 different coding tasks", "12 different computational problem types", "six different parallel programming models". These should be written out as "four hundred and twenty", "twelve", and "six" respectively.<|eos|>

Introduction: The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section~\ref{sec:background} provides background on LLMs and parallel programming. Section~\ref{sec:benchmark} describes the \generatebench{} benchmark in detail. Section~\ref{sec:evaluation} presents our evaluation methodology and results. Section~\ref{sec:metrics} introduces our novel metrics for evaluating LLM generated code. Section~\ref{sec:analysis} analyzes the performance of LLMs on the \generatebench{} benchmark. Section~\ref{sec:related} discusses related work. Finally, Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} concludes the paper and discusses future work.

  1. Spell and Grammar Check:

    • Pass: The text is free of spelling and grammatical errors.

  2. Present Tense Usage:

    • Pass: The body of the paper uses present tense consistently, e.g., "Large language model (LLM) based coding tools are becoming popular," "Popular models such as StarCoder span a wide range of programming languages."

  3. Consistent Tense Usage:

    • Pass: The tense usage is consistent throughout the paragraph, with no switching between tenses.

  4. Correct Use of "Which" and "That":

    • Pass: The use of "which" and "that" is correctly distinguished. For example, "tasks, including code completion, summarization, translation, and lookup, that LLMs can perform" would use "that" correctly for defining clauses, while "tasks, such as code completion, which are performed by LLMs" would use "which" correctly for non-defining clauses. The text does not misuse these terms.

  5. Avoidance of Long Sentences and Passive Voice:

    • Pass: The sentences are generally concise and avoid passive voice. For example, "Parallel code is essential to modern software development due to the ubiquity of multi-core processors, GPGPUs, and distributed systems" is a clear, active sentence.

  6. Avoidance of Informal Wording:

    • Pass: The text uses formal wording throughout, such as "demonstrated" instead of "shown," "such as" instead of "like," and "observe" instead of "see."

  7. Numbers Less Than 10 Written Out:

    • Pass: Numbers less than 10 are written out as words, e.g., "seven different execution models."

Overall, the "Introduction" section passes all the criteria listed. The writing is clear, formal, and adheres to the specified guidelines.<|eos|>

Background: 1. Spell and Grammar Check:

  • Pass: The text is free of spelling and grammatical errors.

  1. Present Tense Usage:

    • Pass: The body of the paper uses present tense consistently, e.g., "Transformer networks are designed to model sequential data," "An LLM trained on a large corpus of code can be used to generate code."

  2. Consistent Tense Usage:

    • Pass: The tense usage is consistent throughout the section, with no unnecessary switching within paragraphs.

  3. Correct Use of "Which" and "That":

    • Pass: The use of "which" and "that" is correctly distinguished. For example, "{\it Multi-head attention} allows for learning multiple attention representations, which are computed between pairs of tokens in the input."

  4. Avoidance of Long Sentences and Passive Voice:

    • Pass: The sentences are generally concise and avoid passive voice. For example, "Transformer networks are designed to model sequential data" is active and clear.

  5. Avoidance of Informal Wording:

    • Pass: The text uses formal wording throughout, such as "observe" instead of "see," "demonstrate" instead of "show," and "such as" instead of "like."

  6. Numbers Less Than 10 Written Out:

    • Fail: The text uses numerals for numbers less than 10 in some instances, such as "2017" and "0.2." These should be written out as "two thousand seventeen" and "zero point two" respectively.

Overall, the section "Background" is well-written and adheres to most of the specified criteria, with the exception of the use of numerals for numbers less than 10.<|eos|>

Related Work: 1. Spell and Grammar Check:

  • Pass: The section is free of spelling and grammatical errors.

  1. Present Tense Usage:

    • Pass: The body of the paper uses present tense consistently, e.g., "These models are usually evaluated on code generation tasks."

  2. Consistent Tense Usage:

    • Pass: The tense usage is consistent throughout the section, with no frequent switching within paragraphs.

  3. Correct Use of "Which" and "That":

    • Pass: The use of "which" and "that" is correctly distinguished. For example, "The first of these, HumanEval, is a set of 164 code generation tasks that are designed to evaluate the ability of LLMs to write short Python functions" uses "that" correctly to introduce a restrictive clause.

  4. Avoidance of Long Sentences and Passive Voice:

    • Fail: Some sentences are quite long and could be broken down for better readability. For example, "None of these works comprehensively evaluate and compare the ability of LLMs to generate parallel code across a large number of problems, execution models, and LLMs using state-of-the-art evaluation techniques, which is the focus of this work." Additionally, passive voice is used in some instances, such as "These models are usually evaluated on code generation tasks."

  5. Avoidance of Informal Wording:

    • Pass: The section avoids informal wording, using terms like "evaluate" instead of "check," "demonstrate" instead of "show," and "such as" instead of "like."

  6. Numbers Less Than 10 Written Out as Words:

    • Fail: The section does not consistently write out numbers less than 10 as words. For example, "18 programming languages" should be "eighteen programming languages."

Overall, the section is well-written but could benefit from breaking down long sentences and using active voice more consistently. Additionally, numbers less than 10 should be written out as words to adhere to standard academic writing practices.<|eos|>

\generatebench{: <|eos|>

Description of Evaluation Experiments: 1. Spell and Grammar Check:

  • Pass: The text is free of spelling and grammatical errors.

  1. Present Tense Usage:

    • Fail: The text uses a mix of present and past tense. For example, "We evaluate LLMs" (present tense) and "We evaluated several prompting formats" (past tense). The paper should consistently use present tense for describing the experiments.

  2. Consistent Tense Usage:

    • Fail: The tense usage is not consistent. The text switches between present and past tense within the same section, which can be confusing. For example, in Experiment 2, "We prompt the LLM" (present tense) and "We evaluated several prompting formats" (past tense) are used in the same paragraph.

  3. Correct Use of "Which" and "That":

    • Pass: The text correctly distinguishes between "which" and "that." For example, "We evaluate LLMs on how well they can generate code for all the prompts in \generatebench{}, which we do by asking the model to complete the function started in the prompt" uses "which" correctly to introduce a non-restrictive clause.

  4. Avoidance of Long Sentences and Passive Voice:

    • Fail: The text contains some long sentences and uses passive voice. For example, "The metrics are computed over the combined results from the OpenMP, MPI, MPI+OpenMP, Kokkos, CUDA, and HIP execution models, and compared with the same metrics computed over the serial results" is a long sentence. Additionally, "An example of this prompt format is shown in \Cref{lst:translation-prompt}" uses passive voice.

  5. Avoidance of Informal Wording:

    • Pass: The text uses formal wording throughout. For example, "evaluate" instead of "check," "demonstrate" instead of "show," and "such as" instead of "like."

  6. Numbers Less Than 10 Written Out as Words:

    • Fail: The text does not consistently write out numbers less than 10 as words. For example, "1" in "Experiment 1" and "2" in "Experiment 2" are written as numerals instead of "one" and "two."

Overall, the section needs some revisions to meet all the criteria, particularly in terms of tense consistency and sentence structure.<|eos|>

Models used for Comparison: However, we include them in our evaluation as they are widely considered to be amongst the best performing LLMs available.

\begin{table}[t] \centering \caption{Models used for comparison} \label{tab:models} \begin{tabular}{lccc} \toprule \textbf{Model} & \textbf{Size} & \textbf{Open Source} & \textbf{Instruction Tuned} \ \midrule CodeLlama-7B & 7B & Yes & No \ CodeLlama-13B & 13B & Yes & No \ CodeLlama-34B & 34B & Yes & No \ StarCoderBase & 15.5B & Yes & No \ Phind-CodeLlama-V2 & 34B & No & No \ GPT-3.5 & Unknown & No & Yes \ GPT-4 & Unknown & No & Yes \ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{table}

  1. Spell and Grammar Check:

    • Pass: The section is free of spelling and grammatical errors.

  2. Present Tense Usage:

    • Pass: The body of the paper uses present tense consistently, e.g., "We choose to compare," "We select these models," "We use the most up-to-date versions."

  3. Consistent Tense Usage:

    • Pass: The tense usage is consistent throughout the section, with no switching within paragraphs.

  4. Correct Use of "Which" and "That":

    • Pass: The section correctly distinguishes between "which" and "that." For example, "All three models started with Llama 2 weights and were then fine-tuned on 500 billion tokens from a dataset of predominantly code, which the Llama 2 models were also extended to support longer context lengths of 16k and infilling to generate code in the middle of sequences."

  5. Avoidance of Long Sentences and Passive Voice:

    • Pass: The section avoids long sentences and passive voice. Sentences are concise and active, e.g., "We select these models as they are amongst the top performing open-source LLMs."

  6. Avoidance of Informal Wording:

    • Pass: The section uses formal wording throughout, e.g., "observe" instead of "see," "demonstrate" instead of "show," and "such as" instead of "like."

  7. Numbers Less Than 10 Written Out as Words:

    • Fail: The section does not consistently write out numbers less than 10 as words. For example, "80+" is used instead of "eighty plus," and "500 billion" is used instead of "five hundred billion." However, this is a minor issue and does not detract significantly from the overall quality of the writing.

Overall, the writing quality of the "Models used for Comparison" section is high, with only a minor issue regarding the formatting of numbers.<|eos|>

Evaluation Metrics: This would be useful for understanding how well the generated code scales with problem size.

  1. Spell and Grammar Check:

    • Pass: The section is free of spelling and grammatical errors.

  2. Present Tense Usage:

    • Pass: The body of the paper uses present tense consistently, e.g., "We adopt the pass@$k$ metric," "This metric provides insight," "We also define a variant."

  3. Consistent Tense Usage:

    • Pass: The tense usage is consistent throughout the section, with no switching within paragraphs.

  4. Correct Use of "Which" and "That":

    • Pass: The section correctly distinguishes between "which" and "that." For example, "The probability that the model will generate a correct solution" uses "that" correctly to introduce a restrictive clause.

  5. Avoidance of Long Sentences and Passive Voice:

    • Fail: The section contains some long sentences that could be broken down for clarity. For example, "The sum of these probabilities, each weighted by their respective speedups, gives the expected max speedup over $k$ samples." Additionally, passive voice is used in some instances, such as "The number of correct samples can be used to estimate the pass@$k$ value."

  6. Avoidance of Informal Wording:

    • Pass: The section uses formal wording throughout, such as "demonstrate" instead of "show," "such as" instead of "like," and "observe" instead of "see."

  7. Numbers Less Than 10 Written Out as Words:

    • Fail: The section does not consistently write out numbers less than 10 as words. For example, "1 attempt" should be "one attempt," and "1, 5, 10, 20, and 100" should have "one" and "five" written out.

Overall, the section is well-written with a few areas for improvement, particularly in sentence length, passive voice usage, and the consistent formatting of numbers.<|eos|>

Experimental Setup: For the HIP runs, we use the same number of threads as the CUDA runs.

Evaluation:

  1. Spell and Grammar Check

    • Pass: The text is free of spelling and grammatical errors.

  2. Present Tense Usage

    • Pass: The body of the paper uses present tense consistently, e.g., "we use the HuggingFace library", "we create a PyTorch Dataset object", "we run with $1, 2, 4, \ldots, 32$ threads".

  3. Consistent Tense Usage

    • Pass: The tense usage is consistent throughout the section, with no switching within paragraphs.

  4. Correct Use of "Which" and "That"

    • Pass: The use of "which" and "that" is correctly distinguished. For example, "a Huggingface Pipeline object, which then runs the models" and "the scripts that compile and run the generated code".

  5. Avoidance of Long Sentences and Passive Voice

    • Pass: The section avoids long sentences and passive voice. Sentences are concise and active, e.g., "We use nucleus sampling with a value of $p=0.95$."

  6. Avoidance of Informal Wording

    • Pass: The section uses formal wording throughout, e.g., "observe" instead of "see", "demonstrate" instead of "show", "such as" instead of "like".

  7. Numbers Less Than 10 Written Out as Words

    • Fail: The section does not consistently write out numbers less than 10 as words. For example, "20 samples" and "3 minutes" are used instead of "twenty samples" and "three minutes".

Overall, the section "Experimental Setup" is well-written and adheres to most of the specified criteria, with the exception of consistently writing out numbers less than 10 as words.<|eos|>

Evaluation Results: <|eos|>

Conclusion: <|eos|>