MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385214089 · doi:10.1145/3610291

A Survey on Approximate Multiplier Designs for Energy Efficiency: From Algorithms to Circuits

2023· article· en· W4385214089 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLow-power high-performance VLSI design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceMultiplier (economics)Efficient energy useComputationElectronic circuitComputer engineeringAlgorithmElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the stringent requirements of energy efficiency for Internet-of-Things edge devices, approximate multipliers, as a basic component of many processors and accelerators, have been constantly proposed and studied for decades, especially in error-resilient applications. The computation error and energy efficiency largely depend on how and where the approximation is introduced into a design. Thus, this article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the approximation techniques in multiplier designs ranging from algorithms and architectures to circuits. We have implemented representative approximate multiplier designs in each category to understand the impact of the design techniques on accuracy and efficiency. The designs can then be effectively deployed in high-level applications, such as machine learning, to gain energy efficiency at the cost of slight accuracy loss.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.213 · 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