Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Decoding Alignment: A Critical Survey of LLM Development Initiatives through Value-setting and Data-centric Lens

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces FEMU, an open-source FPGA emulation framework that combines all five capabilities needed for TinyAI design exploration, and claims energy estimates within 5 percent of silicon.

desk verdict A useful open-source FPGA emulation platform for TinyAI, with a credible CPU timing comparison but an over-stated 5% energy-accuracy claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16982 v1 pith:ISN5JR74 submitted 2025-08-23 cs.CL

Ilias Chalkidis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords FPGAemulationTinyAIheterogeneoussystemsenergyestimationperformanceIPvirtualizationhardware/softwareco-designopen-sourceframework
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces FEMU, an open-source FPGA-based emulation framework for prototyping 'TinyAI' systems—ultra-low-power edge devices that combine a general-purpose CPU with specialized hardware accelerators. The authors set out to show that FEMU is the only platform among the surveyed FPGA-based alternatives that simultaneously supports all five capabilities needed for early-stage design: a heterogeneous system in reconfigurable hardware, a software control region running a standard operating system, IP virtualization, performance estimation, and energy estimation. To demonstrate this, they build X-HEEP-FEMU on a Zynq-7020 SoC and validate its energy estimates against measurements from HEEPocrates, a 65 nm CMOS silicon implementation of the same host; CPU-only estimates agree within about 5 percent, while accelerator-inclusive estimates are within about 20 percent. The significance is practical: design teams can evaluate performance and energy of an accelerator before the RTL exists, then re-evaluate after integration, all within one open-source environment.

What carries the argument

The central object is the FEMU framework's two-region architecture: a reconfigurable hardware region (RH) holds the heterogeneous system under development, and a control software region (CS) runs a standard OS that provides virtualization, monitoring, and estimation. The load-bearing identity is $E = \sum P_{\text{state}} \cdot t_{\text{state}}$, where $P_{\text{state}}$ is the average power of a domain in one of four power states from the HEEPocrates silicon model and $t_{\text{state}}$ is the residency time measured by performance counters in the RH. This identity ties performance measurement to energy estimation and lets the same flow handle software-virtualized accelerators and RTL accelerators.

What would settle it

Take a workload that keeps the CPU in a different mix of active, clock-gated, and power-gated states than the calibration kernels, run it on both X-HEEP-FEMU and HEEPocrates, and compare estimated against measured energy; if the per-state power values do not transfer, the discrepancy will exceed the claimed 5 percent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that no existing FPGA-based platform covers the full feature set required for TinyAI heterogeneous-system exploration, and that FEMU closes this gap. In its X-HEEP-FEMU instantiation, the under-development system lives in a reconfigurable hardware region, while a Linux-based Python environment on the ARM Cortex-A9 handles supervision, virtualization of the debugger, ADC, flash, and accelerators, and post-execution energy calculation. Energy is computed by multiplying average power values for each of four power states—active, clock-gated, power-gated, and retention—by the time spent in each state as recorded by hardware performance counters, with the power values taken from the HEEPocrates silicon. The authors claim that this design reproduces silicon energy trends closely enough for early-stage decisions, with about 5 percent average deviation in CPU-only runs, and that flash virtualization delivers a 250x speedup in a data-collection case study.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the average power measured for each power state on the HEEPocrates silicon chip stays the same when the same host is run on the FPGA, so that energy estimates are compared against silicon as ground truth rather than tuned to match it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A designer can start from a CPU-only baseline, profile it, model a candidate accelerator in software, validate it functionally, and then swap in an RTL implementation without changing the evaluation environment.
  • CPU-only energy estimates on the platform track the silicon reference within about 5 percent, making the platform a credible early-stage filter for design choices despite not being cycle-accurate.
  • The CGRA case study shows acceleration can cut processing time by up to 9x and lower energy at the same time, and the platform reproduces that trend even though its accelerator energy estimates carry around 20 percent error.
  • Flash virtualization removes a storage bottleneck in data-heavy TinyAI experiments: a 240-window transfer drops from about 10 minutes to about 2.4 seconds, enabling full-dataset validation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the energy model is calibrated on a 65 nm silicon process, a user who instantiates FEMU on a different target technology would need to re-derive the per-state power values; the framework supports that, but the 5 percent figure should not be assumed to transfer.
  • The 'only platform' claim is relative to the five features listed in the comparison table; adding criteria such as cycle accuracy, scalability to multiple FPGAs, or analog/mixed-signal support could change the ranking.
  • The virtualized ADC and flash make it possible to replay complete real sensor datasets at speed, which suggests the platform could also serve as a reproducibility and regression-testing harness for TinyAI benchmarks, a use the paper only hints at.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents FEMU, an FPGA-based emulation framework for prototyping TinyAI heterogeneous systems, and its instantiation X-HEEP-FEMU on a Xilinx Zynq-7020. The framework combines a reconfigurable hardware region (RH) hosting the X-HEEP RISC-V host with a Linux-based control software region (CS), and provides virtualization for debugger, ADC, flash, and accelerators, together with performance counters and energy models derived from the HEEPocrates silicon. The paper reports three case studies (signal acquisition, matrix multiplication/convolution/FFT kernels with and without a CGRA accelerator, and sample storage) and claims that X-HEEP-FEMU is the only surveyed FPGA platform supporting all five evaluated features, with an energy model accurate to within 5%. The submission, however, opens with an abstract for an unrelated paper on LLM alignment, and the body's central accuracy claim rests on a validation methodology that is partly self-referential.

Significance. If the energy-accuracy claim were independently established, FEMU would be a genuinely useful open-source contribution: it is the first platform in the authors' comparison to combine HS-based RH, OS-based CS, IP virtualization, performance estimation, and energy estimation, and the flash-virtualization speedup (a reported 250x for the sample-storage use case) is compelling. The open-source release and the clear prototyping flow are also strengths. Nevertheless, the headline 'within 5%' result is a CPU-only self-consistency check against the same silicon used to calibrate the power model, and the CGRA case shows roughly 20% deviation, so the paper's significance as an accurate energy-estimation infrastructure is not yet established at the level claimed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Title/Abstract and body] The submission's top-level abstract and identifier describe 'Decoding Alignment: A Critical Survey of LLM Development Initiatives through Value-setting and Data-centric Lens' (arXiv:2508.16982, cs.CL), but the body is a self-contained hardware paper titled 'FEMU: An Open-Source and Configurable Emulation Framework for Prototyping TinyAI Heterogeneous Systems' (arXiv:2508.16981, cs.AR). The body never addresses AI alignment, RLHF, or LLM development initiatives, and the FEMU abstract appears again inside the body. As submitted, the document is not internally coherent: the front matter does not summarize the content, and the claimed topic, title, and subject class do not match the actual contribution. This mismatch must be resolved before a substantive review of the claimed research topic is possible.
  2. [Section IV-D and Sections V-A/V-B] The energy model in Section IV-D is built from per-domain average power values measured on the HEEPocrates silicon, and the validation in Sections V-A and V-B compares X-HEEP-FEMU estimates against the same HEEPocrates chip. The reported ~5% CPU-only agreement therefore mainly demonstrates that FEMU's power-state residency accounting matches HEEPocrates' cycle behavior; it does not independently validate the power values themselves or their transfer to a different process, frequency, or design. Because the same silicon is used for calibration and validation, the agreement is partially self-referential. A validation against an independent silicon measurement not used for calibration, or a portability experiment with a different host or target technology, is needed to support the accuracy claim.
  3. [Section V-B and Figures 4-5] Only normalized time and energy plots are presented, with no absolute energy values, no per-configuration error table, and no error bars or repeated-run statistics. The 'approximately 5% average deviation' cannot be audited from the figures, and normalized curves can conceal a constant multiplicative error in absolute energy. The authors should report absolute energy numbers (or per-benchmark percentage errors) with run-to-run variance, both for CPU-only and CGRA configurations.
  4. [Section VI vs Section V-B] The conclusion states that the energy model exhibits an error within 5%, but Section V-B reports roughly 20% deviation for CGRA-accelerated configurations, with the discrepancy attributed to post-place-and-route power estimates. Since energy estimation for accelerators is a stated contribution of the framework, the headline accuracy claim should be explicitly qualified as applying to CPU-only configurations, or the accelerator energy model should be refined and revalidated before such a claim is made.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section I] The introductory paragraph says 'The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews related work' and refers to 'Section 3', 'Section 4', etc., while the actual section headings use Roman numerals (II, III, IV, V, VI); the numbering convention should be made consistent.
  2. [Section V-C] The text reports a '250 � speedup' and earlier 'up to 9 �'; the multiplication symbol is garbled in the submitted text and should be typeset correctly.
  3. [Table I] Table I would benefit from a short statement of the criteria used to assign each binary feature flag, since the claim of being the only platform supporting all five dimensions depends on those judgments.
  4. [References [2] and [30]] The HEEPocrates reference [2] is an activity report rather than an archival publication; given that the energy model is grounded in that chip, the authors should provide a citable source with the measurement methodology and power values.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Energy-accuracy claim is partially self-referential: power constants and validation ground truth both come from HEEPocrates.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-D (energy model); Sections V-A and V-B (validation); Section VI (conclusion)]
    "To provide energy estimation, an energy model is derived from a TSMC 65 nm CMOS silicon implementation of X-HEEP, called HEEPocrates [2], and specifies the average power consumption of each domain in its four power states... Energy consumption is calculated by multiplying the average power values by the time spent in each state, as measured by the performance counters. As a baseline for validation, the same acquisition kernel is executed on HEEPocrates [2], a silicon implementation of X-HEEP fabricated in TSMC 65 nm CMOS technology... with an energy model exhibiting an error within 5 %."

    The per-domain average power values used by the FEMU energy model are taken from the same HEEPocrates silicon that later serves as the validation reference. X-HEEP-FEMU energy is therefore HEEPocrates power constants multiplied by FPGA-measured state-residency times, while the reference HEEPocrates energy is the same chip's power behavior multiplied by silicon-measured residency times. Agreement between the two mostly verifies that the FPGA emulation reproduces HEEPocrates cycle and power-state accounting; it does not independently test the power model or its transfer to another process, design, or workload. The stated 5% error is thus partly a timing-fidelity check presented as energy-model accuracy, and the conclusion omits the CGRA case, where the reported deviation is around 20%.

full rationale

The framework itself is not circular: the RH/CS split, virtualization mechanisms, performance counters, and the iterative prototyping flow are system-design contributions with independent content, and the Table I comparison is descriptive rather than derivational. The significant circularity burden is confined to the energy-validation chain. The energy model's constants come from HEEPocrates measurements, and the validation ground truth is the same HEEPocrates chip, so the 'within 5%' claim is a partial self-comparison rather than an independent accuracy test. This is not a definitional identity because the time-in-state component is measured separately on the FPGA and can in principle deviate. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain, no ansatz smuggled in by citation, and no renaming of a known result. Score 4 reflects the moderate, partial circularity of the headline energy-accuracy claim; a fully independent validation would require a different silicon target, a different process node, or absolute energy measurements with per-configuration error tables.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on transferring a silicon-calibrated energy model to an FPGA-emulated host, and on virtualized peripherals preserving real-time behavior. The per-domain power values and CGRA power estimates are fitted or derived values not reported in the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • Per-domain average power values for X-HEEP power states
    Section IV-D defines energy as average power multiplied by time in active, clock-gated, power-gated, and retention states; these power values are taken from HEEPocrates silicon measurements and are not reported in the paper.
  • CGRA power values
    Section V-B states that CGRA energy estimates use power values derived from post-place-and-route analysis, which are less accurate than silicon measurements and are additional fitted or estimated parameters.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption HEEPocrates silicon energy behavior represents the FPGA-prototyped X-HEEP system.
    Section IV-D derives the energy model from TSMC 65 nm HEEPocrates measurements and applies it to X-HEEP running on the Zynq FPGA; Section V then validates FEMU against the same HEEPocrates chip.
  • domain assumption Virtualized ADC, flash, and debugger preserve the real-time behavior of the emulated system.
    Sections III-A and IV-B rely on dual-FIFO and SPI-to-AXI bridges to emulate acquisition and storage without changing performance or energy measurements.
  • domain assumption Performance counters and power-state tracking accurately capture active, clock-gated, power-gated, and retention cycles.
    Section IV-C: energy estimates are time-in-state values from performance counters; if counters misclassify states, the energy estimates fail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decoding Alignment: A Critical Survey of LLM Development Initiatives through Value-setting and Data-centric Lens." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ISN5JR74

@misc{pith2026250816982,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decoding Alignment: A Critical Survey of LLM Development Initiatives through Value-setting and Data-centric Lens},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ISN5JR74}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16982}
}
read the original abstract

AI Alignment, primarily in the form of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), has been a cornerstone of the post-training phase in developing Large Language Models (LLMs). It has also been a popular research topic across various disciplines beyond Computer Science, including Philosophy and Law, among others, highlighting the socio-technical challenges involved. Nonetheless, except for the computational techniques related to alignment, there has been limited focus on the broader picture: the scope of these processes, which primarily rely on the selected objectives (values), and the data collected and used to imprint such objectives into the models. This work aims to reveal how alignment is understood and applied in practice from a value-setting and data-centric perspective. For this purpose, we investigate and survey (`audit') publicly available documentation released by 6 LLM development initiatives by 5 leading organizations shaping this technology, focusing on proprietary (OpenAI's GPT, Anthropic's Claude, Google's Gemini) and open-weight (Meta's Llama, Google's Gemma, and Alibaba's Qwen) initiatives, all published in the last 3 years. The findings are documented in detail per initiative, while there is also an overall summary concerning different aspects, mainly from a value-setting and data-centric perspective. On the basis of our findings, we discuss a series of broader related concerns.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A Hardware/Software Co-Design Vision for Deep Learning at the Edge

    Flavio Ponzina et al. “A Hardware/Software Co-Design Vision for Deep Learning at the Edge”. In: IEEE Micro 42.6 (2022), pp. 48–54

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    HEEPocrates: An ultra-low-power RISC- V microcontroller for edge-computing healthcare applications

    Simone Machetti et al. “HEEPocrates: An ultra-low-power RISC- V microcontroller for edge-computing healthcare applications”. In: Europractice Activity Report (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    ASIP design for motion estimation in video com- pression algorithms

    Simone Machetti. “ASIP design for motion estimation in video com- pression algorithms”. In: Master Thesis, Polito (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    e-GPU: An Open-Source and Configurable RISC-V Graphic Processing Unit for TinyAI Applications

    Simone Machetti et al. e-GPU: An Open-Source and Configurable RISC-V Graphic Processing Unit for TinyAI Applications. 2025. arXiv: 2505.08421 ������� . URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08421

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    MEDEA: A Design-Time Multi-Objective Manager for Energy-Efficient DNN Inference on Heterogeneous Ultra-Low Power Platforms

    Hossein Taji et al. “MEDEA: A Design-Time Multi-Objective Manager for Energy-Efficient DNN Inference on Heterogeneous Ultra-Low Power Platforms”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.19067 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Modular Design and Optimization of Biomedical Applications for Ultralow Power Heterogeneous Plat- forms

    Elisabetta De Giovanni et al. “Modular Design and Optimization of Biomedical Applications for Ultralow Power Heterogeneous Plat- forms”. In: IEEE TCAD 39.11 (2020), pp. 3821–3832

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    ACE: Automated Optimization Towards Iterative Classification in Edge Health Monitors

    Yuxuan Wang et al. “ACE: Automated Optimization Towards Iterative Classification in Edge Health Monitors”. In: TBioCAS 19.1 (2025), pp. 82–92

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Energy-Efficient Frequency Selection Method for Bio-Signal Acquisition in AI/ML Wearables

    Hossein Taji et al. “Energy-Efficient Frequency Selection Method for Bio-Signal Acquisition in AI/ML Wearables”. In: Proceedings of the 29th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Low Power Electronics and Design. 2024, pp. 1–6

    work page 2024

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Mr. Wolf: An energy-precision scalable parallel ultra low power SoC for IoT edge processing

    Antonio Pullini et al. “Mr. Wolf: An energy-precision scalable parallel ultra low power SoC for IoT edge processing”. In: IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits 54.7 (2019), pp. 1970–1981

    2019

  2. [10]

    OpenTitan

    LowRISC. OpenTitan. URL: https://github.com/lowRISC/opentitan

  3. [11]

    The gem5 simulator

    Nathan Binkert et al. “The gem5 simulator”. In: SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News 39.2 (Aug. 2011), pp. 1–7. ISSN : 0163-5964. DOI: 10. 1145 / 2024716 . 2024718. URL: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1145 / 2024716 . 2024718

    2011

  4. [12]

    X-HEEP: An Open-Source, Configurable and Extendible RISC-V Microcontroller for the Exploration of Ultra-Low- Power Edge Accelerators

    Simone Machetti et al. X-HEEP: An Open-Source, Configurable and Extendible RISC-V Microcontroller for the Exploration of Ultra-Low- Power Edge Accelerators. 2024. arXiv: 2401.05548

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Microscope on Memory: MPSoC-Enabled Computer Memory System Assess- ments

    Abhishek Kumar Jain, Scott Lloyd, and Maya Gokhale. “Microscope on Memory: MPSoC-Enabled Computer Memory System Assess- ments”. In: 2018 IEEE 26th Annual International Symposium on Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines (FCCM) . 2018, pp. 173–180

    2018

  6. [14]

    An FPGA-based Hybrid Memory Emulation System

    Fei Wen et al. “An FPGA-based Hybrid Memory Emulation System”. In: 2021 31st International Conference on Field-Programmable Logic and Applications (FPL) . 2021, pp. 190–196

    2021

  7. [15]

    FAME: A Fast and Accurate Memory Emulator for New Memory System Architecture Exploration

    Krishna T. Malladi et al. “FAME: A Fast and Accurate Memory Emulator for New Memory System Architecture Exploration”. In: 2015 IEEE 23rd International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems . 2015, pp. 43–46

    2015

  8. [16]

    Performance Impact of Emerging Memory Technologies on Big Data Applications: A Latency-Programmable System Emulation Approach

    Mu-Tien Chang et al. “Performance Impact of Emerging Memory Technologies on Big Data Applications: A Latency-Programmable System Emulation Approach”. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Great Lakes Symposium on VLSI . New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2018, pp. 439–442

    2018

  9. [17]

    An FPGA-based Emulation Platform for Edge Computing Node Design Exploration

    Theo Soriano, David Novo, and Pascal Benoit. “An FPGA-based Emulation Platform for Edge Computing Node Design Exploration”. In: 2021 IEEE International Workshop on Rapid System Prototyping (RSP). 2021, pp. 8–14

    2021

  10. [18]

    Active Cache Emulator

    Eriko Nurvitadhi, Jumnit Hong, and Shih-Lien Lu. “Active Cache Emulator”. In: IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems 16.3 (2008), pp. 229–240

    2008

  11. [19]

    A Complete Multi-Processor System-on- Chip FPGA-Based Emulation Framework

    Pablo G. Del Valle et al. “A Complete Multi-Processor System-on- Chip FPGA-Based Emulation Framework”. In: 2006 IFIP Interna- tional Conference on Very Large Scale Integration. 2006, pp. 140–145

    2006

  12. [20]

    A fast HW/SW FPGA-based thermal emula- tion framework for multi-processor system-on-chip

    D. Atienza et al. “A fast HW/SW FPGA-based thermal emula- tion framework for multi-processor system-on-chip”. In: 2006 43rd ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference . 2006, pp. 618–623

    2006

  13. [21]

    A hardware framework for on-chip FPGA acceleration

    Andrea Lomuscio et al. “A hardware framework for on-chip FPGA acceleration”. In: 2016 International Symposium on Integrated Circuits (ISIC). 2016, pp. 1–4

    2016

  14. [22]

    HERO: an open-source research platform for HW/SW exploration of heterogeneous manycore systems

    Andreas Kurth et al. “HERO: an open-source research platform for HW/SW exploration of heterogeneous manycore systems”. In: New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2018. ISBN : 9781450365918

    2018

  15. [23]

    A RISC-V-based FPGA Overlay to Sim- plify Embedded Accelerator Deployment

    Gianluca Bellocchi et al. “A RISC-V-based FPGA Overlay to Sim- plify Embedded Accelerator Deployment”. In: 2021 24th Euromicro Conference on Digital System Design (DSD) . 2021, pp. 9–17

    2021

  16. [24]

    Rapid energy estimation of compu- tations on FPGA based soft processors

    Jingzhao Ou and V .K. Prasanna. “Rapid energy estimation of compu- tations on FPGA based soft processors”. In: IEEE International SOC Conference, 2004. Proceedings. 2004, pp. 285–288

    2004

  17. [25]

    FPGA-based data acquisition system

    Ye Fan. “FPGA-based data acquisition system”. In: 2011 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Signal Processing, Communications and Computing (ICSPCC). 2011, pp. 1–3

    2011

  18. [26]

    X-HEEP: An Open-Source, Config- urable and Extendible RISC-V Microcontroller

    Pasquale Davide Schiavone et al. “X-HEEP: An Open-Source, Config- urable and Extendible RISC-V Microcontroller”. In: ACM CF. 2023, pp. 379–380

    2023

  19. [27]

    VersaSens: An Extendable Mul- timodal Platform for Next-Generation Edge-AI Wearables

    Taraneh Aminosharieh Najafi et al. “VersaSens: An Extendable Mul- timodal Platform for Next-Generation Edge-AI Wearables”. In: IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Artificial Intelligence (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Performance evaluation of acceleration of convolutional layers on OpenEdgeCGRA

    Nicol `o Carpentieri et al. “Performance evaluation of acceleration of convolutional layers on OpenEdgeCGRA”. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers: Workshops and Special Sessions . 2024, pp. 67–70

    2024

  21. [29]

    VWR2A: a very-wide-register reconfigurable-array architecture for low-power embedded devices

    Benoit W. Denkinger et al. “VWR2A: a very-wide-register reconfigurable-array architecture for low-power embedded devices”. In: Proceedings of the 59th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Confer- ence. DAC ’22. San Francisco, California: Association for Computing Machinery, 2022, pp. 89...

    2022

  22. [30]

    X-HEEP: An Open-Source, Configurable and Extendible RISC-V Platform for TinyAI Applications

    Simone Machetti et al. “X-HEEP: An Open-Source, Configurable and Extendible RISC-V Platform for TinyAI Applications”. In: Infoscience EPFL (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    An Open-Hardware Coarse-Grained Reconfigurable Array for Edge Computing

    Rub ´en Rodr´ıguez ´Alvarez et al. “An Open-Hardware Coarse-Grained Reconfigurable Array for Edge Computing”. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers . CF ’23. Bologna, Italy, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    A flexible framework for early power and timing comparison of time-multiplexed CGRA kernel executions

    Maxime Henri Aspros et al. “A flexible framework for early power and timing comparison of time-multiplexed CGRA kernel executions”. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers: Workshops and Special Sessions . 2025, pp. 62–65

    2025

  25. [33]

    X-HEEP Application: Wood Moisture Classifica- tion Using DNNs

    Saverio Nasturzio. “X-HEEP Application: Wood Moisture Classifica- tion Using DNNs”. In: Semester Project Report (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.