Two Approximate Voting Schemes for Reliable Computing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper relies on the principles of inexact computing to alleviate the issues arising in static masking by voting for reliable computing in the nanoscales. Two schemes that utilize in different manners approximate voting, are proposed. The first scheme is referred to as inexact double modular redundancy (IDMR). IDMR does not resort to triplication, thus saving overhead due to modular replication. This scheme is crudely adaptive in its operation, i.e., it allows a threshold to determine the validity of the module outputs. IDMR operates by initially establishing the difference between the values of the outputs of the two modules; only if the difference is below a preset threshold, then the voter calculates the average value of the two module outputs. The second scheme (ITDMR) combines IDMR with TMR (triple modular redundancy) by using novel conditions in the comparison of the outputs of the three modules. Within an inexact framework, the majority is established using different criteria; in ITDMR, adaptive operation is carried further than IDMR to include approximate voting in a pairwise fashion. So, the validity of the three inputs is established and when only two of the three inputs satisfy the threshold condition, the IDMR operation is utilized. An extensive analysis that includes the voting circuits as well as a probabilistic framework is included. The proposed IDMR and ITDMR schemes improve the power dissipation and tolerance to variations compared to a traditional TMR. To further validate the applicability of the proposed schemes, inexact voting has been used in two applications (image processing and FIR filtering); the simulation results show that performance is substantially improved over TMR.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".