MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1920255781 · doi:10.1109/newcas.2005.1496692

Mapping Multiplexers onto Hard Multipliers in-FPGAs

2005· article· en· W1920255781 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Jamieson, Jonathan Rose

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLow-power high-performance VLSI design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiplexerField-programmable gate arrayLookup tableComputer scienceDigital electronicsReduction (mathematics)Programmable logic deviceElectronic circuitLogic synthesisParallel computingSet (abstract data type)Computer hardwareEmbedded systemComputer architectureLogic gateAlgorithmMultiplexingElectrical engineeringEngineeringMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern FPGAs now contain a selection of "hard" digital structures such as memory blocks and multipliers (Altera, 2003, Xilinx, 2003, QuickLogic, 2003, Actel, Lattice, 2004) in addition to the usual "soft" programmable logic typically consisting of lookup tables (LUTs) and flip-flops. These hard structures are a major benefit (in area and speed) for those applications that need them, but are completely wasted if an application circuit docs not require them. Finding other ways to use these structures will benefit these applications. In this paper, the authors presented a technique to map multiplexers to unused hard multipliers on an FPGA. An RTL synthesis tool flow that implements this technique over a set of benchmarks was created. While some circuits see no reduction in LUT count at all, others show meaningful improvements ranging from 10% to 70%. On average across the whole set of circuits the technique achieves a 7.3% reduction on the number of LUTs used. In some cases, however, the operating frequency of the circuit is reduced significantly.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLow-power high-performance VLSI designFrench-language works237,207