MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137786380 · doi:10.1049/cdt2.12019

Fast and low‐power leading‐one detectors for energy‐efficient logarithmic computing

2021· article· en· W3137786380 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Saeed Ansari, S. Girish Gandhi, B.F. Cockburn, Jie Han

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Computers & Digital Techniques · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNumerical Methods and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogarithmMultiplexerComputationMultiplier (economics)Binary numberDetectorAlgorithmMultiplication (music)Computer scienceScalingArithmeticMathematicsParallel computingMultiplexingCombinatoricsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The logarithmic number system (LNS) can be used to simplify the computation of arithmetic functions, such as multiplication. This article proposes three leading‐one detectors (LODs) to speed up the binary logarithm calculation in the LNS. The first LOD (LOD I) uses a single fixed value to approximate the d least significant bits (LSBs) in the outputs of the LOD. The second design (LOD II) partitions the d LSBs into smaller fields and uses a multiplexer to select the closest approximation to the exact value. These two LODs help with error cancellation as they introduce signed errors for inputs N < 2 d . Additionally, a scaling scheme is proposed that scales up the input N < 2 d to avoid large approximation errors. Finally, an improved exact LOD (LOD III) is proposed that only passes half of the input N to the LOD; the more significant half is passed if there is at least one ‘1’ in that half; otherwise, the less significant half is passed. Our simulation results show that the 32‐bit LOD III can be up to 2.8× more energy‐efficient than existing designs in the literature. The Mitchell logarithmic multiplier and a neural network are considered to further illustrate the practicality of the proposed designs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Computers & Digital TechniquesSame topicNumerical Methods and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207