MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104038618 · doi:10.1109/tcad.2008.915532

Fast Design Space Exploration Using Local Regression Modeling With Application to ASIPs

2008· article· en· W2104038618 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Hallschmid, Resve Saleh

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVLSI and Analog Circuit Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDesign space explorationSpeedupComputer scienceParallel computingBenchmark (surveying)CacheCPU cacheSpace (punctuation)InferenceCache-oblivious algorithmSet (abstract data type)MicroarchitecturePoint (geometry)AlgorithmComputer engineeringCache algorithmsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEmbedded systemProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The configuration of an application-specific instruction-set processor through an exhaustive search of the design space is computationally prohibitive. Consequently, we propose a novel algorithm that models the design space using local regression statistics. With only a small subset of the design space sampled, our model uses statistical inference to estimate all remaining points. This technique enables existing design space exploration approaches to make longer strides toward the optimal point while evaluating fewer points in the design space. We tested our approach on two important aspects of processor architecture. Initially, we optimized the pattern history table (PHT) of a GSelect branch predictor to minimize the total energy of an embedded processor. Our approach was able to find the optimal configuration for the majority of benchmarks tested. By configuring the PHT size using our approach, the total processor energy was reduced by 17.2% on average, which is close to the possible percentage of 17.6% using optimal configurations. We then extended our approach to a multidimensional cache tuning problem where we configured a two-level cache hierarchy with 19 278 possible configurations. In this case, only 1% of the design space was simulated, resulting in a 100 times speedup. In doing so, we were able to identify near optimal configurations for most benchmarks and reduce the overall energy of the processor by 13.9% on average, with one benchmark by as much as 53%.

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)0.007
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.165 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and SystemsSame topicVLSI and Analog Circuit TestingFrench-language works237,207