Redesigned CMOS (4; 2) compressor for fast binary multipliers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(4; 2) compressors seem to be the most popular bit-compressing cells with principal application in multi-operand addition and multiplication hardware. Therefore, performance of (4; 2) compressors is particularly influential in the efficiency of multiplication intensive computations. Realization of these cells is mainly based on XOR/XNOR gates, which are functionally equivalent to three simpler ones among AND/NAND and OR/NOR gates. Decomposition of XOR/XNOR gates in some (4; 2) compressors to their constituent simpler ones may lead to removal of some hardware redundancy. In this paper we take advantage of such decomposition to propose a new (4; 2) compressor design, evaluate its performance, and compare it with previous designs. The proposed (4; 2) compressor, as such, and those of reference works are simulated with HSPICE using 45nm post-layout CCMOS standard cell library with presence of process variation. The results show performance improvements, compared to the best of reference designs, in terms of delay (17%), power (13%), and power-delay-product (30%). For more realistic comparison, performance of each design is evaluated via incorporation of more than 1300 (4; 2) compressors in 54×54-bit binary multipliers as a uniform test bench via MAGMA tools. This experience confirmed the above results on isolated single (4; 2) compressors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".