MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167718530 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2005.1557027

Effective implementation of floating-point adder using pipelined LOP in FPGAs

2006· article· en· W2167718530 on OpenAlexafffund
Ali Malik, Seok‐Bum Ko

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNumerical Methods and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAdderField-programmable gate arrayComputer scienceFloating pointParallel computingPoint (geometry)Computer architectureEmbedded systemAlgorithmTelecommunicationsMathematicsLatency (audio)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current intellectual property provided by Xilinx for floating-point adder is not competitive and versatile. This paper presents a hardware implementation of IEEE 754 compliant floating-point adder and a design methodology for floating-point adder with leading-one predictor (LOP). LOP has been used to predict the shift amount for post normalization in parallel with the addition. In some cases, however, there is an error in prediction. LOP used in our design detects this error concurrently with the prediction. Xilinx 6.3 ISE was used to synthesize VHDL implementations for five levels of pipeline stage floating-point adder. LOP was pipelined to three stages, to obtain better latency for some Xilinx FPGA devices compared to the current intellectual property. For Spartan 3 and Virtex 2p FPGA architectures with five stage pipeline implementation, 25% improvement in clock speed was achieved using pipelined LOP.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNumerical Methods and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207