MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6906895428 · doi:10.18130/v3w78t

Architecture Implications of Pads as a Scarce Resource: Extended Results

2014· report· en· W6906895428 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibra · 2014
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoise (video)VoltagePower (physics)Key (lock)Bandwidth (computing)Limit (mathematics)ChipElectromigration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to non-ideal technology scaling, delivering a stable supply voltage is increasingly challenging. Furthermore, competition for limited chip interface resources (i.e., C4 pads) between power supply and I/O, and the loss of such resources to electromigration, means that constructing a power delivery network (PDN) that satisfies noise margins without compromising performance is and will remain a critical problem for architects and circuit designers alike. Simple guardbanding will no longer work, as the consequent performance penalty will grow with technology scaling. In this report, we develop a pre-RTL PDN model, VoltSpot, for the purpose of studying the performance and noise trade-offs among power supply and I/O pad allocation, the effectiveness of noise mitigation techniques, and the consequent implications of electromigrationinduced PDN pad failure. Our simulations demonstrate that, despite their integral role in the PDN, power/ground pads can be aggressively reduced (by conversion into I/O pads) to their electromigration limit with minimal performance impact from extra voltage noise – provided the system implements a suitable noise-mitigation strategy. The key observation is that even though reducing power/ground pads significantly increases the number of voltage emergencies, the average noise amplitude increase is small. Overall, we can triple I/O bandwidth while maintaining target lifetimes and incurring only 1.5% slowdown.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibraFrench-language works237,207