MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063456777 · doi:10.5555/1899721.1899888

TLM automation for multi-core design

2010· article· en· W2063456777 on OpenAlexaff
Samar Abdi

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEmbedded Systems Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAutomationElectronic design automationScheduling (production processes)Computer architectureEmbedded systemNetlistElectronic system-level design and verificationMulti-core processorGranularitySoftware engineeringProgramming languageOperating systemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transaction Level Models (TLMs) are being increasingly used by multi-core system designers for design validation and embedded SW development. However, with well defined modeling semantics and TLM automation tools, it is also possible to use TLMs for multi-core design. This paper presents recent research in automatic generation of timed TLMs for early, yet reliable, evaluation of multi-core design decisions. The TLMs are automatically generated from a given mapping of a concurrent application to a multi-core platform. The application code is annotated with delays at the basic-block level of granularity. Similarly, the platform services, such as communication and scheduling, also include timing delays. The TLM automation methods have been implemented in the Embedded System Environment (ESE) toolset. Our experimental results with ESE demonstrate that multi-core TLMs can be generated in the order of seconds; they simulate close to host-compiled application execution speed, and are more than 90% accurate compared to board measurements on average for industrial size examples. Therefore, TLM automation enables early and reliable evaluation of multi-core design decisions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia and South Pacific Design Automation ConferenceSame topicEmbedded Systems Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207