Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, two approximation models are proposed for restoring divider. In the first design, approximation is performed at circuit level, where exact restoring divider cells are replaced by approximate restoring divider cells by simplifying the logic equations. In the second model, restoring divider is analysed strategically and number of restoring divider cells are reduced by finding the portions of divisor and dividend with significant information. An approximation factor p is used in both designs. In model 1, the design with p = 8 has a 75% reduction in both area and power consumption compared to exact design, with a Q-MRED of 1.909 × 10-2 and Q-NMED of 0.449 × 10-2. The second model with an approximation factor p = 4 has 52% area savings and 61% power savings compared to exact design. The proposed models are found to have better error metrics compared to existing approximate designs, with better area and power savings at similar error values. A change detection image processing application is used for real time assessment of proposed and existing approximate dividers and one of the models achieves a PSNR of 54.27 dB.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".