A scalable, serially-equivalent, high-quality parallel placement methodology suitable for modern multicore and GPU architectures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Placement and routing run-times continue to dominate the automated FPGA design flow. As the size of FPGA architectures continue to grow exponentially, it remains critical to develop parallel tools for FPGA design where the amount of exposed concurrent work scales with the size of the designs to be synthesized. In this paper, we propose a novel algorithm for parallel placement, based on simulated annealing, where the amount of parallel work directly scales with the size of the net-list to be placed. Our approach concurrently evaluates and conditionally applies very large sets of non-conflicting swaps using common parallel computing primitives, including stream compaction, category reduction, and sort. While our design is suitable for targeting all modern parallel computing platforms, we present results from our implementation which targets NVIDIA's CUDA platform, where we achieve a mean speed-up of 19x over VPR with post-routing critical-path-delay and wire-length quality that matches or exceeds VPR. We believe that this work is an important step towards the development of a scalable, high-quality placement tool.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".