MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147370385 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2005.1557129

Implementation of three SIMD algorithms for graphical user interface processing in mobile devices using the Atsana J2210 media processor

2006· article· en· W2147370385 on OpenAlexaff
Kristopher Breen, J.H. Tapia, D.G. Elliott

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSIMDComputer scienceReduced instruction set computingRendering (computer graphics)Mobile deviceAlgorithmParallel computingComputer hardwareInstruction setComputer graphics (images)Operating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the implementation of three single-instruction, multiple-data (SIMD) parallel algorithms for improved graphical user interface processing in mobile devices. These algorithms, which perform alpha blending, window masking and rendering with antialiasing, are adapted for use with Atsana semiconductor's J2210 media processor, a low-power system-on-chip for graphic, image and video processing in wireless applications. All three SIMD algorithms are successfully realized in software for the J2210, without the use of any floating-point math or integer division. The algorithms are evaluated through architecturally-aware simulation of the J2210's SIMD array processor, and their performance is compared to that of equivalent sequential algorithms on a conventional RISC processor. Results show a performance improvement by a factor of 99.6, 39.3 and 2.4 for alpha blending, window masking and rendering with antialiasing, respectively. Power consumption in the array processor is very low for each algorithm, with a maximum of 4.5 mW during active operation. The combination of high performance and low power consumption achieved by these algorithms demonstrates that they are suitable for use in mobile devices equipped with a SIMD-capable media processor such as the J2210

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 score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207