mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

SAGE: Semantic-Aware Geographic Error Recovery for AI Data Movement

arXiv 2609.10126 ↗First posted 9 Sep 2026cs.ARcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

AI interconnects typically protect and replay packets uniformly, yet numerical bit faults differ sharply in consequence: a low-order mantissa flip may resemble quantization noise, while a high-significance exponent flip can produce a catastrophic outlier or non-finite value. We present SAGE, a semantic-aware geographic error-recovery architecture that decouples whether a detected fault merits replay from where replay restarts. For BF16-like data, a workload-calibrated contract separates catastrophic Class-H faults from bounded Class-M and precision Class-L damage. It first applies a Class-H silent-delivery constraint, then ranks admissible policies by quality-normalized terminal latency, Psirm del. Independently, a source-local region table adapts checkpoint intervals to fault geography, shortening recovery segments in noisy regions. Detected Class-H failures may trigger protected negative acknowledgments and full-flit replay; Class-M and Class-L outcomes do not trigger default network replay. We implement SAGE's endpoint and replay protocol in gem5 Garnet and synthesize its fully pipelined checker in ASAP7. At a stable synthetic operating point, a ten-seed contention-faithful direct-Garnet campaign shows that SAGE reduces Psirm del by 30.1% relative to fixed 34-hop recovery, combining 28.0% lower mean latency with improved delivered semantic quality. Under higher-BER synthetic stress at the same offered load, SAGE maintains bounded queues while the fixed baseline accumulates backlog. Application-derived DeiT-S communication traces also show lower mean and p99.5 latency at the evaluated nonzero BERs. Within the qualified operating envelope, CRC32 decoder trials yield a simultaneous 95% per-original Class-H silent-delivery upper bound of 3.18×10-7.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Sep 2026.

Builds on

11 of 34 references.

References · 11

  1. 2014ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challengecited by 8,498
  2. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
  3. 2020Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attentioncited by 4,586
  4. 2017Deep Learning Scaling is Predictable, Empiricallycited by 582
  5. 2015Deep Learning with Limited Numerical Precisioncited by 376
  6. 2023Microscaling Data Formats for Deep Learningcited by 152
  7. 2019Bit-Flip Attack: Crushing Neural Network with Progressive Bit Searchcited by 108
  8. 2021The Shape of Learning Curves: a Reviewcited by 70
  9. 2023Ramulator 2.0: A Modern, Modular, and Extensible DRAM Simulatorcited by 30
  10. 2020Functional Error Correction for Robust Neural Networkscited by 7
  11. 2025Making Strong Error-Correcting Codes Work Effectively for HBM in AI Inferencecited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Localizing Emergent Failures in Agentic AI: Recovering Minimal Repair Families via Counterfactual Replay
  2. 2026Don't Regenerate, Debug: A Domain-Specific Agent for Repairing Near-Miss Hardware Operators
  3. 2026DART: Semantic Recoverability for Structured Tool Agents
  4. 2026ParaRecover: A Process-Level Benchmark for Error Localization and Recovery in Parallel Tool-Use Agents
  5. 2026When Tools Fail: Benchmarking Dynamic Replanning and Anomaly Recovery in LLM Agents
  6. 2026From Faulty Memories to Corrected Actions: Dependency-Guided Rollback Repair for Memory-Augmented Agents
  7. 2026SREGym: A Live Benchmark for AI SRE Agents with High-Fidelity Failure Scenarios
  8. 2025Enhancing reliability in AI inference services: An empirical study on real production incidents