MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2801196757 · doi:10.1109/isqed.2018.8357275

Comparative study and prediction modeling of photonic ring Network on Chip architectures

2018· article· en· W2801196757 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Karimi, Jelena Trajković

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEnergy consumptionBenchmark (surveying)ScalabilityDesign space explorationInterconnectionLatency (audio)Efficient energy useNetwork on a chipNetwork packetSystem on a chipComputer architectureDistributed computingEmbedded systemComputer engineeringEngineeringComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multicore systems are becoming state-of-the-art and therefore need fast and energy efficient interconnects to take full advantage of the computational capabilities. Integration of silicon photonics with traditional electrical interconnect in Network on Chip (NoC) proposes a promising solution for overcoming the scalability issues of electrical interconnect. In this paper, we implement the simulation model for two Optical NoC architectures and compare their performance. We also derive and evaluate a prediction modeling technique for the design space exploration of ONoCs. Our proposed model accurately predicts packet latency, static and dynamic energy consumption of the network. This work specifically addresses the challenge of accurately estimating performance metrics without having to incur high costs of exhaustive simulations. Our case study shows that by using only 10% of the entire design space, our proposed technique builds a prediction model that achieved average error rates as low as 5.44%, 2.67% and 3.24% for network packet latency, static and dynamic energy consumption respectively in six different benchmarks from Splash-2 benchmark suite.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotonic and Optical Devices→French-language works237,207→