Configurable Detection of SDC-causing Errors in Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Silent Data Corruption (SDC) is a serious reliability issue in many domains, including embedded systems. However, current protection techniques are brittle and do not allow programmers to trade off performance for SDC coverage. Further, many require tens of thousands of fault-injection experiments, which are highly time- and resource-intensive. In this article, we propose two empirical models, SDCTune and SDCAuto , to predict the SDC proneness of a program’s data. Both models are based on static and dynamic features of the program alone and do not require fault injections to be performed. The main difference between them is that SDCTune requires manual tuning while SDCAuto is completely automated, using machine-learning algorithms. We then develop an algorithm using both models to selectively protect the most SDC-prone data in the program subject to a given performance overhead bound. Our results show that both models are accurate at predicting the relative SDC rate of an application compared to fault injection, for a fraction of the time taken. Further, in terms of efficiency of detection (i.e., ratio of SDC coverage provided to performance overhead), our technique outperforms full duplication by a factor of 0.78x to 1.65x with the SDCTune model and 0.62x to 0.96x with SDCAuto model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".