Area efficient floating‐point FFT butterfly architectures based on multi‐operand adders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hardware implementation of the fast Fourier transform (FFT) function consists of multiple consecutive arithmetic operations over complex numbers. Applying floating‐point arithmetic to FFT coprocessors leads to a wider dynamic range and allows the coprocessor to collaborate with general purpose processors via the standard floating‐point arithmetic. This offloads compute‐intensive tasks from the primary processor and overcomes floating‐point concerns such as scaling and overflow/underflow detection. The downside, however, is that floating‐point units are slower than the fixed‐point counterparts. One of the popular ways to improve the speed of floating‐point FFT units is to merge the arithmetic operations inside the butterfly units of a FFT architecture. This leads to a butterfly architecture based on multi‐operand adders. Butterfly units are designed, in two of the most recent works, using three‐operand and four‐operand adders. However, the work reported here by the present authors goes further and a butterfly architecture based on a five‐operand adder is proposed. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed butterfly architecture is 50% smaller than the fastest previous work with about 17% latency overhead. Compared with the smallest previous work, the proposed design is 47% smaller and 8% faster.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".