MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135183949 · doi:10.1145/379240.379265

Power and energy reduction via pipeline balancing

2001· article· en· W2135183949 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
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsPQ Corporation (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePipeline (software)Reduction (mathematics)QueuePower (physics)Embedded systemDissipationEnergy (signal processing)Power budgetPower optimizationEfficient energy useMicroarchitectureElectric power systemOperating systemPower consumptionEngineeringComputer networkElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Minimizing power dissipation is an important design requirement for both portable and non-portable systems. In this work, we propose an architectural solution to the power problem that retains performance while reducing power. The technique, known as Pipeline Balancing (PLB), dynamically tunes the resources of a general purpose processor to the needs of the program by monitoring performance within each program. We analyze metrics for triggering PLB, and detail instruction queue design and energy savings based on an extension of the Alpha 21264 processor. Using a detailed simulator, we present component and full chip power and energy savings for single and multi-threaded execution. Results show an issue queue and execution unit power reduction of up to 23% and 13%, respectively, with an average performance loss of 1% to 2%.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · 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