ePVF: An Enhanced Program Vulnerability Factor Methodology for Cross-Layer Resilience Analysis
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
The Program Vulnerability Factor (PVF) has been proposed as a metric to understand the impact of hardware faults on software. The PVF is calculated by identifying the program bits required for architecturally correct execution (ACE bits). PVF, however, is conservative as it assumes that all erroneous executions are a major concern, not just those that result in silent data corruptions, and it also does not account for errorsthat are detected at runtime, i.e., lead to program crashes. A more discriminating metric can inform the choice of the appropriate resilience techniques with acceptable performance and energy overheads. This paper proposes ePVF, an enhancement of the original PVF methodology, which filters out the crash-causing bits from the ACE bits identified by the traditional PVF analysis. The ePVF methodology consists of an error propagation model that reasons about error propagation in the program, and a crash model that encapsulates the platform-specific characteristics for handling hardware exceptions. ePVF reduces the vulnerable bits estimated by the original PVF analysis by between 45% and 67% depending on the benchmark, and has high accuracy (89% recall, 92% precision) in identifying the crash-causing bits. We demonstrate the utility of ePVF by using it to inform selectiveprotection of the most SDC-prone instructions in a program.
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 | 0.001 | 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