MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149757711 · doi:10.1109/asap.2008.4580178

A multi-FPGA application-specific architecture for accelerating a floating point Fourier Integral Operator

2008· article· en· W2149757711 on OpenAlexafffund
Jason Lee, Lesley Shannon, Matthew J. Yedlin, Gary F. Margravé

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of CalgarySimon Fraser University
FundersCMC Microsystems
KeywordsField-programmable gate arrayKernel (algebra)Computer scienceFloating pointFast Fourier transformThroughputHardware accelerationParallel computingEmbedded systemOperator (biology)Point (geometry)AccelerationComputer hardwareFloating-point unitSoftwareHardware architectureFixed-point arithmeticAlgorithmMathematicsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many complex systems require the use of floating point arithmetic that is exceedingly time consuming to perform on personal computers. However, floating point operators are also hardware resource intensive and require longer latencies than fixed point operators to complete. Due to the reduced logic density of FPGAs relative to ASICs, it is often only possible to accelerate a portion of a floating point application in hardware. This paper presents an application-specific architecture for the hardware acceleration of a complete Fourier Integral Operator (FIO) kernel used in seismic imaging on a multi-FPGA platform. The design utilizes several floating point computing elements (CEs) to calculate the FIO kernel in parallel stages on multiple FPGAs. A detailed study of floating point CEs, including a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) CE, and a complete FIO prototype implementation on the BEE2 platform is described. The prototype implementation has a 12.4x increase in throughput over an optimized software implementation, and a predicted 15.8x increase in throughput on the BEE3 platform.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207