Algorithmic Aspects of Hardware/Software Partitioning: 1D Search Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hardware/software (HW/SW) partitioning is one of the key challenges in HW/SW codesign. This paper presents efficient algorithms for the HW/SW partitioning problem, which has been proved to be NP-hard. We reduce the HW/SW partitioning problem to a variation of knapsack problem that is approximately solved by searching 1D solution space, instead of searching 2D solution space in the latest work cited in this paper, to reduce time complexity. Three heuristic algorithms are proposed to determine suitable partitions to satisfy HW/SW partitioning constraints. We have shown that the time complexity for partitioning a graph with n nodes and m edges is significantly reduced from O(dx· dy· n3) to O(n log n + d · (n + m)), where d and dx· dyare the number of the fragments of the searched 1D solution space and the searched 2D solution space, respectively. The lower bound on the solution quality is also proposed based on the new computing model to show that it is comparable to that reported in the literature. Moreover, empirical results show that the proposed algorithms produce comparable and often better solutions when compared to the latest algorithm while reducing the time complexity 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".