Modeling Input-Dependent Error Propagation in Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transient hardware faults are increasing in computer systems due to shrinking feature sizes. Traditional methods to mitigate such faults are through hardware duplication, which incurs huge overhead in performance and energy consumption. Therefore, researchers have explored software solutions such as selective instruction duplication, which require fine-grained analysis of instruction vulnerabilities to Silent Data Corruptions (SDCs). These are typically evaluated via Fault Injection (FI), which is often highly time-consuming. Hence, most studies confine their evaluations to a single input for each program. However, there is often significant variation in the SDC probabilities of both the overall program and individual instructions across inputs, which compromises the correctness of results with a single input. In this work, we study the variation of SDC probabilities across different inputs of a program, and identify the reasons for the variations. Based on the observations, we propose a model, VTRIDENT, which predicts the variations in programs' SDC probabilities without any FIs, for a given set of inputs. We find that VTRIDENT is nearly as accurate as FI in identifying the variations in SDC probabilities across inputs. We demonstrate the use of VTRIDENT to bound overall SDC probability of a program under multiple inputs, while performing FI on only a single input.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".