MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Blueprint for Machine Learning Accelerators Using Silicon Dangling Bonds

2023· article· en· W4386352467 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Sze Hang Ng, Hsi Nien Chiu, Jacob Retallick, Konrad Walus

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSemiconductor materials and devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlueprintComputer scienceComputer engineeringBenchmark (surveying)Computer architectureAccelerationLogic synthesisArtificial intelligenceLogic gateEngineeringAlgorithmPhysicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As we approach the limit of transistor scaling, an appealing alternative in the form of quantum dots made of silicon dangling bonds (SiDBs) has been experimentally demonstrated to be capable of realizing sub-30 nm2logic gates. The introduction of SiQAD, a calibrated computer-aided design tool for the design and simulation of SiDBs, has further enabled the rapid exploration of this novel design space outside of experimental laboratories. Motivated by these advances and by identifying recent demands in machine learning acceleration, this paper proposes an architecture for an SiDB inference accelerator. Area and power estimates are made based on existing logic components and power models, the results are compared against Google's TPUv1. At the same clock rate, the proposed SiDB inference accelerator offers up to 10× improvement in area efficiency and orders of magnitude improvement in power efficiency, showing tremendous promise for further research into this novel platform technology.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemiconductor materials and devicesFrench-language works237,207