MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129897591 · doi:10.1109/tvlsi.2004.842901

POMR: a power-aware interconnect optimization methodology

2005· article· en· W2129897591 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed A. F. Youssef, Mohab Anis, M. Elmasry

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLow-power high-performance VLSI design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Very-large-scale integrationInterconnectionRouting (electronic design automation)Power optimizationPower (physics)Process variationDynamic demandChipSizingReliability engineeringPower consumptionEmbedded systemProcess (computing)Computer networkEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As VLSI technologies scale down, the average die size is expected to remain constant or to slightly increase with each generation. This results in an average increase in the global interconnect lengths. To mitigate their impact, buffer insertion has become the most widely used technique. However, unconstrained buffering is expected to require several hundreds of thousands of global interconnect buffers. This increased number of buffers is destined to adversely impact the chip power consumption. In this paper, an optimal power maze routing and buffer insertion/sizing problem for a two-pin net is formulated, as a shortest paths ranking problem. The pseudopolynomial time bound of the new formulation fits well within the context of the increased number of buffers. In fact, power savings as high as 25% for the 130-nm technology with a 10% sacrifice in delay is achieved. Furthermore, with the advent of dual threshold technologies, power sensitive applications can substantially benefit from adopting dual threshold buffers. Accordingly, the proposed problem formulation is extended to incorporate the selection of the buffer threshold voltage, where a twofold increase in power savings is observed. During the assessment of the impact of technology scaling using a set of MCNC Benchmarks, an average power saving as high as 35% with a 10% sacrifice in delay is observed. In addition, there is a 10% variation in the power savings when accounting for the process variations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) SystemsSame topicLow-power high-performance VLSI designFrench-language works237,207