Total power optimization combining placement, sizing and multi-Vt through slack distribution management
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
Power dissipation is quickly becoming one of the most important limiters in nanometer IC design for leakage increases exponentially as the technology scaling down. However, power and timing are often conflicting objectives during optimization. In this paper, we propose a novel total power optimization flow under performance constraint. Instead of using placement, gate sizing, and multiple-Vt assignment techniques independently, we combine them together through the concept of slack distribution management to maximize the potential for power reduction. We propose to use the linear programming (LP) based placement and the geometric programming (GP) based gate sizing formulations to improve the slack distribution, which helps to maximize the total power reduction during the Vt-assignment stage. Our formulations include important practical design constraints, such as slew, noise and short circuit power, which were often ignored previously. We tested our algorithm on a set of industrial-strength manually optimized circuits from a multi-GHz 65 nm microprocessor, and obtained very promising results. To our best knowledge, this is the first work that combines placement, gate sizing and Vt swapping systematically for total power (and in particular leakage) management.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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