A Hardware-Efficient Logarithmic Multiplier with Improved Accuracy
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
Logarithmic multipliers take the base-2 logarithm of the operands and perform multiplication by only using shift and addition operations. Since computing the logarithm is often an approximate process, some accuracy loss is inevitable in such designs. However, the area, latency, and power consumption can be significantly improved at the cost of accuracy loss. This paper presents a novel method to approximate log <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> N that, unlike the existing approaches, rounds N to its nearest power of two instead of the highest power of two smaller than or equal to N. This approximation technique is then used to design two improved 16×16 logarithmic multipliers that use exact and approximate adders (ILM-EA and ILM-AA, respectively). These multipliers achieve up to 24.42% and 9.82% savings in area and power-delay product, respectively, compared to the state-of-the-art design in the literature with similar accuracy. The proposed designs are evaluated in the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) image compression algorithm and their advantages over other approximate logarithmic multipliers are shown.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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