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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stacked memory modules are likely to be tightly integrated with the processor. It is vital that these memory modules operate reliably, as memory failure can require the replacement of the entire socket. To make matters worse, stacked memory designs are susceptible to newer failure modes (e.g., due to faulty through-silicon vias, or TSVs) that can cause large portions of memory, such as a bank, to become faulty. To avoid data loss from large-granularity failures, the memory system may use symbol-based codes that stripe the data for a cache line across several banks (or channels). Unfortunately, such data-striping reduces memory-level parallelism, causing significant slowdown and higher power consumption. This article proposes Citadel , a robust memory architecture that allows the memory system to retain each cache line within one bank. By retaining cache lines within banks, Citadel enables a high-performance and low-power memory system and also efficiently protects the stacked memory system from large-granularity failures. Citadel consists of three components; TSV-Swap , which can tolerate both faulty data-TSVs and faulty address-TSVs; Tri-Dimensional Parity (3DP), which can tolerate column failures, row failures, and bank failures; and Dynamic Dual-Granularity Sparing (DDS) , which can mitigate permanent faults by dynamically sparing faulty memory regions either at a row granularity or at a bank granularity. Our evaluations with real-world data for DRAM failures show that Citadel provides performance and power similar to maintaining the entire cache line in the same bank, and yet provides 700 × higher reliability than ChipKill-like ECC codes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it