An evolutionary approach to behavioural-level synthesis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a novel approach to the concurrent solution of three high-level synthesis (HLS) problems and solves them in an integrated manner using hierarchical genetic algorithm (HGA). We focus on the core problems of HLS: scheduling, allocation, and binding. Scheduling consists of assigning of operations in an data-flow graph (DFG) to control steps or clock cycles. Allocation selects specific numbers and types of functional units from a hardware library to perform the operations specified in the DFG. Binding assigns constituent operations of the DFG to specific unit instances. A very general version of the problem is considered where functional units may perform different numbers of control steps. The HLS problems are solved by applying two genetic algorithms in a hierarchical manner. The first performs allocation, while the second performs scheduling and binding and serves as the fitness functions for the first. When compared to other, well-known techniques, our results show a reduction in time to obtain optimal solutions for standard benchmarks.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it