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
This paper examines the interaction between thermal management techniques and power boosting in a state-of-the-art heterogeneous processor consisting of a set of CPU and GPU cores. We show that for classes of applications that utilize both the CPU and the GPU, modern boost algorithms that greedily seek to convert thermal headroom into performance can interact with thermal coupling effects between the CPU and the GPU to degrade performance. We first examine the causes of this behavior and explain the interaction between thermal coupling, performance coupling, and workload behavior. Then we propose a dynamic power-management approach called cooperative boosting (CB) to allocate power dynamically between CPU and GPU in a manner that balances thermal coupling against the needs of performance coupling to optimize performance under a given thermal constraint. Through real hardware-based measurements, we evaluate CB against a state-of-the-practice boost algorithm and show that overall application performance and power savings increase by 10% and 8% (up to 52% and 34%), respectively, resulting in average energy efficiency improvement of 25% (up to 76%) over a wide range of benchmarks.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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