MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1525696892 · doi:10.1109/iccad.2004.1382639

Unification of partitioning, placement and floorplanning

2005· article· en· W1525696892 on OpenAlexaff
Saurabh Adya, Shashank Chaturvedi, Jarrod A. Roy, David Papa, Igor L. Markov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsAdvanced Micro Devices (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFloorplanComputer scienceScalabilityApplication-specific integrated circuitPlacementIntegrated circuit layoutPhysical designMacroParallel computingVery-large-scale integrationUndoComputer engineeringAlgorithmIntegrated circuitCircuit designEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large macro blocks, pre-designed datapaths, embedded memories and analog blocks are increasingly used in ASIC designs. However, robust algorithms for large-scale placement of such designs have only recently been considered in the literature, and improvements by over 10% per paper are still common. Large macros can be handled by traditional floorplanning, but are harder to account for in min-cut and analytical placement. On the other hand, traditional floorplanning techniques do not scale to large numbers of objects, especially in terms of solution quality. We propose to integrate min-cut placement with fixed-outline floor-planning to solve the more general placement problem, which includes cell placement, floorplanning, mixed-size placement and achieving routability. At every step of min-cut placement, either partitioning or wirelength-driven, fixed-outline floorplanning is invoked. If the latter fails, we undo an earlier partitioning decision, merge adjacent placement regions and re-floorplan the larger region to find a legal placement for the macros. Empirically, this framework improves the scalability and quality of results for traditional wirelength-driven floorplanning. It has been validated on recent designs with embedded memories and accounts for routability. Additionally, we propose that free-shape rectilinear floorplanning can be used with rough module-area estimates before synthesis.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations170
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207