MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121327543 · doi:10.1109/icecs.2007.4511157

A Methodology to Evaluate the Energy Efficiency of Application Specific Processors

2007· article· en· W2121327543 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
TopicVideo Coding and Compression Technologies
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEfficient energy useEnergy consumptionField-programmable gate arrayFrame (networking)Energy (signal processing)Power (physics)Instruction setEmbedded systemPower consumptionWork (physics)Frame rateParallel computingArtificial intelligenceEngineeringElectrical engineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes an FPGA based methodology to assess the energy efficiency of application specific processors (ASIPs). This methodology is applied to a video processing algorithm, the motion compensated frame rate conversion (MC-FRC). Previous work has shown that designing a specific instruction set can enhance the performance with a speed-up of more than 80 fold. The purpose of this work is to quantify the energy efficiency of the resulting accelerated processor. This efficiency is evaluated by estimating the power and energy consumption of the processor and of the ASIP when running the algorithm. The results obtained show that the ASIP is more energy efficient than the standard processor by a factor of at least 40. This paper describes the methodology used to compute the power and energy consumption and explains the results through a more detailed analysis of the power and energy consumption.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.342
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