MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025187426 · doi:10.1142/s1469026801000044

AN ENHANCED GENETIC ALGORITHM FOR SOLVING THE HIGH-LEVEL SYNTHESIS PROBLEMS OF SCHEDULING, ALLOCATION, AND BINDING

2001· article· en· W2025187426 on OpenAlexaff
Gary Gréwal, Thomas C. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computational Intelligence and Applications · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEmbedded Systems Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCrossoverScheduling (production processes)High-level synthesisJob shop schedulingMathematical optimizationParallel computingTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmField-programmable gate arrayRouting (electronic design automation)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel approach to the concurrent solution of three High-Level Synthesis (HLS) problems that are modeled as a Constraint-Satisfaction Problem (CSP) and solved using an Enhanced Genetic Algorithm (EGA). We focus on the core problems of high-level synthesis: Scheduling, Allocation, and Binding. Scheduling consists of assigning of operations in a 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 this problem is considered where functional units may perform different operations in different numbers of control steps. The EGA is designed to solve CSPs quickly and does not require a user to specify appropriate mutation and crossover rates a priori; these are determined automatically during the course of the genetic search. The enhancements include a directed mutation operator and a new type of elitism that avoids premature convergence. The HLS problems are solved by applying two EGAs in a hierarchical manner. The first performs allocation, while the second performs scheduling and binding and serves as the fitness function for the second. 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations17
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computational Intelligence and ApplicationsSame topicEmbedded Systems Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207