MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072649780 · doi:10.1049/ip-cdt:20045117

Power-aware branch predictor update

2005· article· en· W2072649780 on OpenAlexaff
Amirali Baniasadi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEE Proceedings - Computers and Digital Techniques · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBranch predictorComputer scienceExploitKey (lock)Power (physics)Predictive powerPower consumptionEnergy consumptionSpeculative executionInteger (computer science)Simple (philosophy)Energy (signal processing)Reliability engineeringParallel computingStatisticsComputer securityEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designers have invested much effort in developing accurate branch predictors. To maintain accuracy, current processors update the predictor regularly and frequently. Although this aggressive approach helps to achieve high accuracy, for a large number of branches, quite often, updating the branch predictor unit is unnecessary as there is already enough information available to the predictor to predict the branch outcome accurately. Therefore, the current approach appears to be inefficient since it results in unnecessary energy consumption. The author introduces the power-aware branch predictor update (PABU). PABU uses a simple power efficient structure to identify well behaved accurately predicted branch instructions. Once such branches are identified, the predictor is no longer accessed to update the associated data. The key to the success of the proposed technique is a power efficient method that can effectively identify such branches. The author exploits branch instruction behaviour to identify such branch instructions. He shows that it is possible to reduce the number of predictor updates considerably without losing performance. The technique is evaluated by studying energy and performance tradeoffs for SPEC2000 benchmarks. It is shown that the technique can reduce branch prediction energy consumption considerably for both floating point and integer benchmarks. This comes with a negligible impact on performance.

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

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEE Proceedings - Computers and Digital TechniquesSame topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207