MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107547422 · doi:10.5555/1950815.1950972

An integer programming placement approach to FPGA clock power reduction

2011· article· en· W2107547422 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Rakhshanfar, Jason H. Anderson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClock skewDigital clock managerClock networkClock gatingCPU multiplierComputer scienceField-programmable gate arrayInteger programmingSynchronous circuitReduction (mathematics)Static timing analysisRouting (electronic design automation)Dynamic demandClock rateSkewTiming failureParallel computingEmbedded systemPower (physics)Clock signalMathematicsAlgorithmJitterTelecommunicationsChip

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract — Clock signals are responsible for a significant por-tion of dynamic power in FPGAs owing to their high toggle fre-quency and capacitance. Clock signals are distributed to loads through a programmable routing tree network, designed to pro-vide low delay and low skew. The placement step of the FPGA CAD flow plays a key role in influencing clock power, as clock tree branches are connected based solely on the placement of the clock loads. In this paper, we present a placement-based approach to clock power reduction based on an integer linear programming (ILP) formulation. Our technique is intended to be used as an op-timization post-pass executed after traditional placement, and it offers fine-grained control of the amount by which clock power is optimized versus other placement criteria. Results show that the proposed technique reduces clock network capacitance by over 50 % with minimal deleterious impact on post-routed wirelength and circuit speed. I.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207