MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123802188 · doi:10.1145/360276.360300

Detailed routing architectures for embedded programmable logic IP cores

2001· article· en· W2123802188 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter Hallschmid, Steven J. E. Wilton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCMC Microsystems
KeywordsApplication-specific integrated circuitRouting (electronic design automation)Logic blockProgrammable logic deviceBlock (permutation group theory)Computer scienceField-programmable gate arrayProgrammable logic arrayChannel (broadcasting)Programmable Array LogicChipLogic synthesisParallel computingSimple programmable logic deviceLogic gateComputer hardwareLogic familyEmbedded systemAlgorithmMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the complexity of integrated circuits increases, the ability to make post-fabrication changes to fixed ASIC chips will become more and more attractive. This ability can be realized using programmable logic cores. These cores are blocks of programmable logic that can be embedded into a fixed-function ASIC or a custom chip. Such cores differ from stand-alone FPGAs in that they can take on a variety of shapes and sizes. With this in mind, we investigate the detailed routing characteristics of rectangular programmable logic cores. We quantify the effects of having different x and y channel capacities, and show that the optimum ratio between the x and y channel widths for a rectangular core is between 1.2 and 1.5. We also present a new switch block family optimized for rectangular cores. Compared to a simple extension of an existing switch block, our new architecture leads to an 8.7% improvement in density with little effect on speed. Finally, we show that if the channel widths and switch block are chosen carefully the penalty for using a rectangular core (compared to a square core with the same logic capacity) is small; for a core with an aspect ratio of 2:1, the area penalty is 1.6% and the speed penalty is 1.1%.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations16
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207