MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387831750 · doi:10.1109/tnano.2023.3326199

A Survey of Majority Logic Designs in Emerging Nanotechnologies for Computing

2023· article· en· W4387831750 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Nanotechnology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum-Dot Cellular Automata
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLogic gateComputer scienceCMOSLogic synthesisLogic familyPass transistor logicTheoretical computer scienceComputer architectureElectronic circuitElectronic engineeringDigital electronicsEngineeringElectrical engineeringAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As Moore's law is coming to an end, research on technologies alternative to the complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) has been extensively pursued over the last few decades. Many emerging nanotechnologies assemble circuits based on majority logic. It is generally known that majority logic is more expressive and hardware efficient than Boolean logic, however majority logic presents unique challenges at many levels such as arithmetic design and synthesis. With the rediscovery of majority logic as a computational primitive in the post-CMOS era, this paper briefly reviews recent studies from various perspectives to highlight accomplishments and open problems across many domains of majority logic design.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.755
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
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.231 · 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