Test whether the extended reachability model closes the prediction gap

Determine whether incorporating $mathrm{reached}(d)$ into the extended time and energy equations closes the companion paper’s predicted-versus-measured discrepancies, or whether an additional currently unmodeled machine-shape field is required.

Background

The paper closes the five newly introduced fields empirically for the device ensemble, but it has not yet rerun the companion paper’s full predicted-versus-measured validation under the extended equations. The proposed experiment is intended to distinguish between successful closure of the observed prediction gap and the need for another machine-shape variable. It also includes testing whether the Boolean-versus-continuous reachability issue generalizes across vendors.

References

The direct next step is the companion paper's own predicted-versus-measured checks (its Tables~VI, VII, VIII, IX): re-run them under the extended equations (\ref{eq:reached-time})--(\ref{eq:reached-energy}) to test directly whether $\mathrm{reached}(d)$ closes the prediction gap those tables already report, or whether a further, currently-unnamed field is still missing -- and whether the A100's own open question, whether $\mathrm{reached}(d)$ is better stated as boolean or continuous, holds across vendors or is itself device-specific.

— Closing the Prediction Gap: Completing Machine Shape So That Predicted Time, Power, Energy, and Mapping Match What Real Hardware Does  (2610.03197 - Mullin et al., 2 Oct 2026) in Section 14, “Future Work”