MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1918137684 · doi:10.1109/icm.1998.825599

On the power implications of floating point addition in IIR filters

2002· article· en· W1918137684 on OpenAlexaff
R.V.K. Pillai, D. Al-Khalili, A.J. Al-Khalili

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Filter Design and Implementation
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfinite impulse responseAdderComputer scienceFloating pointFilter (signal processing)Power (physics)Transfer functionNoise (video)Point (geometry)2D FiltersNoise reductionTransfer (computing)Digital filterAlgorithmMathematicsParallel computingTelecommunicationsEngineeringElectrical engineeringArtificial intelligenceLatency (audio)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In floating point DSP applications, filtering of data samples is one of the most demanding operations. While the specification driven filter design delivers transfer functions satisfying target applications, certain implementations of these transfer functions can result in filters exhibiting various undesirable artifacts. This work addresses the characterization of the relative power implications of floating point Direct form II and Transposed Direct form II IIR filters. In programmable DSP applications, (compared to Transposed Direct form II realizations), Direct form II realizations offers better power reduction as far as the power implications of the floating point adder segment of DSPs are concerned. During filtering of white noise samples, the alignment driven data path switchings of transposed realizations had been found to be around 3 to 4 times that of direct form realizations. Performance of the same experiment involving audio samples substantiates the above findings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Filter Design and ImplementationFrench-language works237,207