MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221017003 · doi:10.1145/3520241

Prediction Modeling for Application-Specific Communication Architecture Design of Optical NoC

2022· article· en· W4221017003 on OpenAlexaff
Jelena Trajković, Sara Karimi, Samantha Hangsan, Wenlu Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDesign space explorationEnergy consumptionBenchmark (surveying)ScalabilityInterconnectionNetwork packetLatency (audio)Efficient energy useNetwork on a chipComputer architectureEmbedded systemDistributed computingComputer engineeringComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-core systems-on-chip are becoming state-of-the-art. Therefore, there is a need for a fast and energy-efficient interconnect to take full advantage of the computational capabilities. Integration of silicon photonics with a traditional electrical interconnect in a Network-on-Chip (NoC) proposes a promising solution for overcoming the scalability issues of electrical interconnect. In this article, we derive and evaluate prediction modeling techniques for the design space exploration (DSE) of application-specific communication architectures for an Optical Network-on-Chip (ONoC). Our proposed model accurately predicts network packet latency, contention delay, and the static and dynamic energy consumption of the network. This work specifically addresses the challenge of accurately estimating performance metrics of the entire design space without having to perform time-consuming and computationally intensive exhaustive simulations. The proposed technique, based on machine learning (ML), can build accurate prediction models using only 10% to 50% (best case and worst case) of the entire design space. The accuracy, expressed as R 2 (Coefficient of Determination) is 0.99901, 0.99967, 0.99996, and 0.99999 for network packet latency, contention delay, static energy consumption, and dynamic energy consumption, respectively, in six different benchmarks from the Splash-2 benchmark suite, chosen among 6 different machine learning prediction models.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Embedded Computing SystemsSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207