MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118828191 · doi:10.1109/cicc.1991.164141

Optimization of field-programmable gate array logic block architecture for speed

2002· article· en· W2118828191 on OpenAlexaff
Sarjana Singh, Jonathan Rose, David Lewis, Kevin Chung, Paul Chow

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLow-power high-performance VLSI design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiplexerProgrammable Array LogicProgrammable logic arrayLogic blockField-programmable gate arrayComplex programmable logic deviceMacrocell arrayProgrammable logic deviceSimple programmable logic deviceRouting (electronic design automation)Computer scienceBlock (permutation group theory)Logic synthesisLogic gateGate arrayErasable programmable logic deviceLogic familyLogic optimizationSet (abstract data type)Computer hardwareAlgorithmEmbedded systemMultiplexingMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors explore the effect of the choice of logic block on the speed of a field-programmable gate array (FPGA). A set of logic circuits was implemented as FPGAs, each using a different logic block, and the speed of the implementation was measured. While the result depends on the delay of programmable routing, experiments indicate that wide input PLA (programmable logic array)-style AND-OR gates, four- and five-input lookup tables, and certain multiplexer configurations produce the lowest total delay over the important values of routing delay. Furthermore, significant gains in performance (from 10% to 41% reduction in total delay) can be achieved by connecting a small number of logic blocks together using hard-wired connections.>

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations40
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLow-power high-performance VLSI designFrench-language works237,207