MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994402203 · doi:10.1109/mm.2013.70

Automating Stressmark Generation for Testing Processor Voltage Fluctuations

2013· article· en· W1994402203 on OpenAlexaff
Young-Taek Kim, Lizy K. John, Sanjay Pant, Srilatha Manne, Michael Schulte, W. Lloyd Bircher, Madhu Saravana Sibi Govindan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Micro · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLow-power high-performance VLSI design
Canadian institutionsAdvanced Micro Devices (Canada)
FundersNational Air and Space Museum
KeywordsComputer scienceMulti-core processorx86VoltageMicroprocessorEmbedded systemResilience (materials science)Power (physics)Synchronization (alternating current)Operating systemElectrical engineeringSoftwareTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid current changes (large di/dt) can lead to significant power supply voltage droops and timing errors in modern microprocessors. To test a processor's resilience to such errors and determine appropriate operating conditions, engineers generally create manual di/dt stressmarks that have large current variations at close to the power distribution network's resonance frequency to induce large voltage droops. This process is time-consuming and might need to be repeated several times to generate appropriate stressmarks for different system conditions (for example, different frequencies or di/dt throttling mechanisms). Furthermore, generating efficient di/dt stressmarks for multicore processors is difficult because of their complexity and synchronization issues. In this article, the authors measure and analyze di/dt issues on state-of-the-art multicore x86 systems. They present an automated di/dt stressmark generation framework called Audit to generate di/dt stressmarks quickly and effectively for multicore systems.

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)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE MicroSame topicLow-power high-performance VLSI designFrench-language works237,207