MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140016060 · doi:10.1109/igcc.2011.6008593

Power and frequency analysis for data and control independence in embedded processors

2011· article· en· W2140016060 on OpenAlexaff
Farzad Samie, Amirali Baniasadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIndependence (probability theory)Control (management)DissipationPower (physics)Power controlMeasure (data warehouse)Control variableEfficient energy useArtificial intelligenceStatisticsElectrical engineeringMathematicsDatabaseEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work we study control independence in embedded processors. We classify control independent instructions to data dependent and data independent and measure each group's frequency and behavior. Moreover, we study how control independent instructions impact power dissipation and resource utilization. We also investigate control independent instructions' behavior for different processors and branch predictors. Our study shows that data independent instructions account for 34% of the control independent instructions in the applications studied here. We also show that control independent instructions account for upto 12% of the processor energy and 15.6%, 11.2% and 8.6% of the instructions fetched, decoded and executed respectively. We also show that control independent instruction frequency increases with register update unit (RUU) size and issue width but shows little sensitivity to branch predictor size. In addition, we illustrate that control independent data independent instructions account for upto 6% of the processor energy. We also show that control independent data independent instruction frequency increases with RUU size and issue width.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207