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
Placement based on simulated annealing is in dominant use in the FPGA community due to its superior quality of result (QoR). However, given the progression of FPGA device capacity to the order of 100K LUTs, the long runtime associated with simulated annealing warrants a revisit of other placement paradigms in the context of FPGAs. In this paper, we attempt to make a rigorous comparison of a recent crop of academic ASIC placers and VPR when applied to modern FPGA device features and design sizes. We also report a new detailed placer, MDP, based on a new problem formulation of maximum-bipartite matching. We show that MDP is 3X to 7X faster than the detailed placer in FastPlace, which until now has been the fastest detailed placer publicly available. Furthermore, this speedup occurs while producing comparable or superior QoR. With these results, we speculate promising research directions towards scalable, high quality FPGA placement flows that can change the user experience from an overnight wait-time to a coffee break wait-time -- even on large 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 | 0.000 | 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