MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970032753 · doi:10.1145/2514740

LegUp

2013· article· en· W1970032753 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Canis, Jongsok Choi, Mark Aldham, Victor Zhang, Ahmed Kammoona, Tomasz Czajkowski, Stephen D. Brown, Jason H. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEmbedded Systems Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsAlterra Power (Canada)University of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftwareHardware architectureHigh-level synthesisComputer hardwareField-programmable gate arrayHardware compatibility listEmbedded systemComputer architectureBenchmark (surveying)Pointer (user interface)Operating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is generally accepted that a custom hardware implementation of a set of computations will provide superior speed and energy efficiency relative to a software implementation. However, the cost and difficulty of hardware design is often prohibitive, and consequently, a software approach is used for most applications. In this article, we introduce a new high-level synthesis tool called LegUp that allows software techniques to be used for hardware design. LegUp accepts a standard C program as input and automatically compiles the program to a hybrid architecture containing an FPGA-based MIPS soft processor and custom hardware accelerators that communicate through a standard bus interface. In the hybrid processor/accelerator architecture, program segments that are unsuitable for hardware implementation can execute in software on the processor. LegUp can synthesize most of the C language to hardware, including fixed-sized multidimensional arrays, structs, global variables, and pointer arithmetic. Results show that the tool produces hardware solutions of comparable quality to a commercial high-level synthesis tool. We also give results demonstrating the ability of the tool to explore the hardware/software codesign space by varying the amount of a program that runs in software versus hardware. LegUp, along with a set of benchmark C programs, is open source and freely downloadable, providing a powerful platform that can be leveraged for new research on a wide range of high-level synthesis topics.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1290.060

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations302
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Embedded Computing SystemsSame topicEmbedded Systems Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207