Characterizing and Improving Resilience of Accelerators to Memory Errors in Autonomous Robots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motion planning is a computationally intensive and well-studied problem in autonomous robots. However, motion planning hardware accelerators (MPA) must be soft-error resilient for deployment in safety-critical applications, and blanket application of traditional mitigation techniques is ill suited due to cost, power, and performance overheads. We propose Collision Exposure Factor (CEF), a novel metric to assess the failure vulnerability of circuits processing spatial relationships, including motion planning. CEF is based on the insight that the safety violation probability increases with the surface area of the physical space exposed by a bit-flip. We evaluate CEF on four MPAs. We demonstrate empirically that CEF is correlated with safety violation probability and that CEF-aware selective error mitigation provides 12.3×, 9.6×, and 4.2× lower dangerous Failures-In-Time rate on average for the same amount of protected memory compared to uniform, bit-position, and access-frequency-aware selection of critical data. Furthermore, we show how to employ CEF to enable fault characterization using 23,000× fewer fault injection (FI) experiments than exhaustive FI and evaluate our FI approach on different robots and MPAs. We demonstrate that CEF-aware FI can provide insights on vulnerable bits in an MPA while taking the same amount of time as uniform statistical FI. Finally, we use the CEF to formulate guidelines for designing soft-error resilient MPAs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".