MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294225194 · doi:10.1051/itmconf/20224802007

Silicon Die Transient Thermal Peak Prediction Approach

2022· article· en· W4294225194 on OpenAlexaff
Aziz Oukaira, Amrou Zyad Benelhaouare, Dariush Amirkhani, Jamal Zbitou, Ahmed Lakhssassi

Bibliographic record

VenueITM Web of Conferences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrostatic Discharge in Electronics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiphysicsField-programmable gate arrayComputer scienceNetlistTransient (computer programming)VerilogFinite element methodElectronic engineeringEmbedded systemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well known that Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) are good platforms for implementing embedded systems because of their configurable nature. However, the temperature of FPGAs is becoming a serious concern. Improvements in manufacturing technology led to increased logic density in integrated circuits as well as higher clock frequencies. As logic density increases, so do power density, which in turn increases the temperature, FPGAs follow the same path. A prediction of the thermal state of the Altera Cyclone V System-on-Chip (SoC) is presented in this work. The prediction study employs a numerical technique called Finite Element Method (FEM), which is a discretization method to approximate the real solution of the Partial Differential Equation (PDE) for heat transfer around the board's critical sources. The DE1 5CSEMA5F31C6N board was simulated using the COMSOL Multiphysics® tool for predicting thermal peaks during 13 hours of normal operation. Using the NISA tool, we obtained very similar results to those previously obtained with a margin of error of 2 %. As a result, a Verilog code implementation that describes the same approach used by the last two simulation tools is uploaded to the FPGA to verify the results of these simulations. This paper provides a more accurate vision of the level of operating stability of our FPGA board, which are currently the most important source for prototyping and designing the world's largest systems.

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.204
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueITM Web of ConferencesSame topicElectrostatic Discharge in ElectronicsFrench-language works237,207