MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086450874 · doi:10.1145/2554688.2554761

MPack

2014· article· en· W2086450874 on OpenAlexaff
Jasmina Vasiljevic, Paul Chow

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCCD and CMOS Imaging Sensors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceThroughputBenchmark (surveying)Embedded systemChipField-programmable gate arrayProcess (computing)Computer hardwareMemory managementSemiconductor memoryComputer architectureOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the challenges in designing high-performance FPGA applications is fine-tuning the use of limited on-chip memory storage among many buffers in an application. To achieve desired performance the designer faces the burden of packaging such buffers into on-chip memories and manually optimizing the utilization of each memory and the throughput of each buffer. In addition, the application memories may not match the word width or depth of the physical on-chip memories available on the FPGA. This process is time consuming and non-trivial, particularly with a large number of buffers of various depths and bit widths. We propose a tool, MPack, which globally optimizes on-chip memory use across all buffers for stream applications. The goal is to speed up development time by providing rapid design space exploration and relieving the designer of lengthy low-level iterations. We introduce new high-level pragmas allowing the user to specify global memory requirements, such as an application's on-chip memory budget and data throughput. We allow the user to quickly generate a large number of memory solutions and explore the trade-off between memory usage and achievable throughput. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our tool, we apply the new high-level pragmas to an image processing benchmark. MPack effectively explores the design space and is able to produce a large number of memory solutions ranging from 10 to 100% in throughput, and from 12 to 100% in on-chip memory usage.

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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.144
Teacher spread0.142 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCCD and CMOS Imaging SensorsFrench-language works237,207