MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362583342 · doi:10.3390/s23073683

A New Recursive Trigonometric Technique for FPGA-Design Implementation

2023· article· en· W4362583342 on OpenAlexafffund
Xing Xing, Wilson Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNumerical Methods and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCORDICField-programmable gate arrayLookup tableTrigonometryComputer scienceTrigonometric functionsAlgorithmWaveformProcess (computing)Logic blockTransformation (genetics)Computer hardwareMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new recursive trigonometric (RT) technique for Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) design implementation. The traditional implementation of trigonometric functions on FPGAs requires a significant amount of data storage space to store numerous reference values in the lookup tables. Although the coordinate rotation digital computer (CORDIC) can reduce the required FPGA storage space, their implementation process can be very complex and time-consuming. The proposed RT technique aims to provide a new approach for generating trigonometric functions to improve communication accuracy and reduce response time in the FPGA. This new RT technique is based on the trigonometric transformation; the output is calculated directly from the input values, so its accuracy depends only on the accuracy of the inputs. The RT technique can prevent complex iterative calculations and reduce the computational errors caused by the scale factor K in the CORDIC. Its effectiveness in generating highly accurate cosine waveform is verified by simulation tests undertaken on an FPGA.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicNumerical Methods and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207