Backpropagation (BP) has long been the predominant method for training neural networks due to its effectiveness. However, numerous alternative approaches, broadly categorized under feedback alignment, have been proposed, many of which are motivated by the search for biologically plausible learning mechanisms. Despite their theoretical appeal, these methods have consistently underperformed compared to BP, leading to a decline in research interest. In this work, we revisit the role of such methods and explore how they can be integrated into standard neural network training pipelines. Specifically, we propose fine-tuning BP-pre-trained models using Sign-Symmetry learning rules and demonstrate that this approach not only maintains performance parity with BP but also enhances robustness. Through extensive experiments across multiple tasks and benchmarks, we establish the validity of our approach. Our findings introduce a novel perspective on neural network training and open new research directions for leveraging biologically inspired learning rules in deep learning.

Performance models are essential for automatic code optimization, enabling compilers to predict the effects of code transformations on performance and guide search for optimal transformations. Building state-of-the-art performance models with deep learning, however, requires vast labeled datasets of random programs -- an expensive and time-consuming process, stretching over months. This paper introduces a self-supervised pre-training scheme with autoencoders to reduce the need for labeled data. By pre-training on a large dataset of random programs, the autoencoder learns representations of code and transformations, which are then used to embed programs for the performance model. Implemented in the Tiramisu autoscheduler, our approach improves model accuracy with less data. For example, to achieve a MAPE of 20.72%, the original model requires 18 million data points, whereas our method achieves a similar MAPE of 22.44% with only 3.6 million data points, reducing data requirements by 5x.

Recently, there has been an explosion of large language models created through fine-tuning with data from larger models. These small models able to produce outputs that appear qualitatively similar to significantly larger models. However, one of the key limitations that have been observed with these models is their propensity to hallucinate significantly more often than larger models. In particular, they have been observed to generate coherent outputs that involve factually incorrect information and spread misinformation, toxicity, and stereotypes. There are many potential causes of hallucination, of which, one hypothesis is that fine-tuning a model on data produced by a larger model leads to a knowledge mismatch which contributes to hallucination. In particular, it is hypothesized that there is a mismatch between the knowledge that is fed to the model to fine-tune it and the knowledge that is already present in the graph. Fine-tuning the model on data that has such mismatch could contribute to an increased propensity to hallucinate. We show that on an unseen test set, a smaller model fine-tuned on data generated from a larger model produced more wrong answers when compared to models fine-tuned on data created by the small model, which confirms the hypothesis.

Code language models have emerged as useful tools for various programming tasks, yet they often struggle when it comes to complex ones. In this paper, we explore the potential of curriculum learning in enhancing the performance of these models. While prior research has suggested that curriculum learning does not necessarily help in improving the performance of language models, our results surprisingly show that this may not be the case for code language models. We demonstrate that a well-designed curriculum learning approach significantly improves the accuracy of small decoder-only code language models on the task of code execution, while its effect on code completion is less significant. To explore the potential of curriculum learning, we train multiple GPT models with 1 million parameters each to predict the next token and evaluate them on code completion and execution tasks. Our contributions include proposing a novel code difficulty assessment metric by combining software code measures, investigating the effectiveness of Curriculum Learning for code language models, and introducing a Novel Curriculum Learning schedule that enhances the performance of small decoder-only language models in code execution tasks. The results of this paper open the door for more research on the use of curriculum learning for code language models.

While polyhedral compilers have shown success in implementing advanced code transformations, they still have challenges in selecting the most profitable transformations that lead to the best speedups. This has motivated the use of machine learning to build cost models to guide the search for polyhedral optimizations. State-of-the-art polyhedral compilers have demonstrated a viable proof-of-concept of this approach. While such a proof-of-concept has shown promise, it still has significant limitations. State-of-the-art polyhedral compilers that use a deep-learning cost model only support a small subset of affine transformations, limiting their ability to apply complex code transformations. They also only support simple programs that have a single loop nest and a rectangular iteration domain, limiting their applicability to many programs. These limitations significantly impact the generality of such compilers and autoschedulers and put into question the whole approach. In this paper, we introduce LOOPer, the first polyhedral autoscheduler that uses a deep-learning based cost model and covers a large set of affine transformations and programs. It supports the exploration of a large set of affine transformations, allowing the application of complex sequences of polyhedral transformations. It also supports the optimization of programs with multiple loop nests and with rectangular and non-rectangular iteration domains, allowing the optimization of an extensive set of programs. We implement and evaluate LOOPer and show that it achieves speedups over the state-of-the-art. On the Polybench benchmark, LOOPer achieves a geometric mean speedup of 1.59x over Tiramisu. LOOPer also achieves competitive speedups with a geometric mean speedup of 1.34x over Pluto, a state-of-the-art polyhedral compiler that does not use a machine-learning based cost model.

In recent years, data has emerged as the new gold, serving as a powerful tool for creating intelligent systems. However, procuring high-quality data remains challenging, especially for code. To address this, we developed TinyPy Generator, a tool that generates random Python programs using a context-free grammar. The generated programs are guaranteed to be correct by construction. Our system uses custom production rules (in the Backus-Naur Form (BNF) format) to recursively generate code. This allows us to generate code with different levels of complexity, ranging from code containing only assignments to more complex code containing conditionals and loops. Our proposed tool enables effortless large-scale Python code generation, beneficial for a wide range of applications. TinyPy Generator is particularly useful in the field of machine learning, where it can generate substantial amounts of Python code for training Python language models. Additionally, researchers who are studying programming languages can utilize this tool to create datasets for their experiments, which can help validate the robustness of code interpreters or compilers. Unlike existing research, we have open-sourced our implementation. This allows customization according to user needs and extends potential usage to other languages.

The emergence of large language models has led to the development of powerful tools such as ChatGPT that can produce text indistinguishable from human-generated work. With the increasing accessibility of such technology, students across the globe may utilize it to help with their school work -- a possibility that has sparked discussions on the integrity of student evaluations in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). To date, it is unclear how such tools perform compared to students on university-level courses. Further, students' perspectives regarding the use of such tools, and educators' perspectives on treating their use as plagiarism, remain unknown. Here, we compare the performance of ChatGPT against students on 32 university-level courses. We also assess the degree to which its use can be detected by two classifiers designed specifically for this purpose. Additionally, we conduct a survey across five countries, as well as a more in-depth survey at the authors' institution, to discern students' and educators' perceptions of ChatGPT's use. We find that ChatGPT's performance is comparable, if not superior, to that of students in many courses. Moreover, current AI-text classifiers cannot reliably detect ChatGPT's use in school work, due to their propensity to classify human-written answers as AI-generated, as well as the ease with which AI-generated text can be edited to evade detection. Finally, we find an emerging consensus among students to use the tool, and among educators to treat this as plagiarism. Our findings offer insights that could guide policy discussions addressing the integration of AI into educational frameworks.