TRUST4 | TCR and BCR assembly from RNA-seq data | Genomics library

All use-cases of a pseudo-random number are a next-level challenge in true-[PARALLEL] computing platforms (not languages, platforms).

Either,
there is some source-of-randomness, which gets us into a trouble once massively-parallel requests are to get fair-handled in a truly [PARALLEL] fashion (here, hardware resources may help, yet at a cost of not being able to reproduce the same behaviour "outside" of this very same platform ( and moment-in-time, if such a source is not software-operated with some seed-injection feature, that may setup the "just"-pseudo-random algorithm that creates a pure-[SERIAL] sequence-of-produced "just"-pseudo-random numbers ) )

Or,
there is some "shared"-generator of pseudo-random numbers, which enjoys of a higher level of system-wide level-of-entropy (which is good for the resulting "quality" of pseudo-randomness) but at a cost of pure-serial dependence (no parallel execution possible,serial sequence gets served one after another in a sequential manner) and having close to zero chance for repeatable runs (a must for reproducible science) providing repeatably same sequences, needed for testing and for method-validation cases.

The code may employ a work-item-"private" pseudo-random generating function(s) _{( privacy is a must for the sake of both the parallel code-execution and the mutual independence (non-intervening processes) of generating these pseudo-random numbers )} , yet each of instances must be a) independently initialised, so as to provide the expected level of randomness achievable in parallelised code-runs and b) any such initialisation ought be performed in a repeatably reproducible manner, for the sake of running the test on different times, often using different OpenCL target computing-platforms.

For __kernel-s, that do not rely on hardware-specific sources-of-randomness, meeting the conditions a && b will suffice for receiving repeatably reproducible (same) results for testing "in vitro" and thus providing a reasonably random method for generating results during generic production-level use-case code-runs "in vivo".

The comparison of net-run-times (benchmarked above) seems to show that Amdahl's law add-on overhead costs plus a tail-end effect of the atomicity-of-work have finally decided the net-run-time was ~ 3.6x faster on XEON compared to GPU: