MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399573545 · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1003837

Non-Idealities in Memristor Devices and Methods of Mitigating Them

2024· book-chapter· en· W4399573545 on OpenAlex
Muhammad Ahsan Kaleem, Jack Cai, Yao‐Feng Chang, Roman Genov, Amirali Amirsoleimani

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

VenueIntechOpen eBooks · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Memory and Neural Computing
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemristorContext (archaeology)Computer scienceSoftwareQuality (philosophy)Resistive random-access memoryElectronic engineeringEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main issues that memristors face, like other hardware components, is non-idealities (that can arise from long-term usage, low-quality hardware, etc.). In this chapter, we discuss some ways of mitigating the effects of such non-idealities. We consider both hardware-based solutions and universal solutions that do not depend on hardware or specific types of non-idealities, specifically in the context of memristive neural networks. We compare such solutions both theoretically and empirically using simulations. We also explore the different non-idealities in depth, such as device faults, endurance, retention, and finite conductance states, considering what causes them and how they can be avoided, and present ways of simulating these non-idealities in software.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.267 · 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