Fast and low‐power leading‐one detectors for energy‐efficient logarithmic computing
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
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it