MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170913388 · doi:10.5555/1266366.1266630

A future of customizable processors: are we there yet?

2007· article· en· W2170913388 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

VenueDesign, Automation, and Test in Europe · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEmbedded Systems Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsSTMicroelectronics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFlexibility (engineering)ReusePersonalizationAutomationComputer architectureMulti-core processorElectronic design automationSoftware engineeringEmbedded systemOperating systemWorld Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Customizable processors are being used increasingly often in SoC designs. During the past few years, they have proven to be a good way to solve the conflicting flexibility and performance requirements of embedded systems design. While their usefulness has been demonstrated in a wide range of products, a few challenges remain to be addressed: 1) Is extending a standard core template the right way to customization, or is it preferable to design a fully customized core from scratch? 2) Is the automation offered by current toolchains, in particular generation of complex instructions and their reuse, enough for what users would like to see? 3) And when we look at the future with the increasing use of multi-processor SoCs, do we see a sea of identical customized processors, or a heterogeneous mix? We comment and elaborate here on these challenges and open questions.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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