MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042103381 · doi:10.1145/1723112.1723183

Fine-grained vs. coarse-grained shift-and-add arithmetic in FPGAs (abstract only)

2010· article· en· W2042103381 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNumerical Methods and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField-programmable gate arrayComputer scienceImplementationLatency (audio)Parallel computingBlock sizeBlock (permutation group theory)Computer architectureArithmeticEmbedded systemMathematicsProgramming languageKey (lock)Operating systemTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compares the speed, area, and latency of shift-and-add arithmetic implemented within fine-grained FPGA resources and within a proposed coarse-grained embedded block for FPGAs. It begins by optimizing the mapping of various shift-and-add architectures within the fine-grained resources of a commercial FPGA to determine which provides the best area, delay, and latency for various word-lengths. It then proposes a new coarse-grained block that supports 16, 32, and 64-bit shift-and-add arithmetic and finally compares coarse-grained implementations to the best fine-grained implementations. Our results show that the coarse-grain implementations are between 15 and 47 times smaller and 5 to 18 times faster, depending on the implementation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNumerical Methods and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207