MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131752392 · doi:10.5555/1129601.1129728

Mixed-size placement via line search

2005· article· en· W2131752392 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Computer Aided Design · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalingComputer scienceLine (geometry)Simple (philosophy)Sampling (signal processing)AlgorithmFunction (biology)Line searchMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a remarkably simple yet very effective line search technique for cell placement. Our method corrects errors in force scaling by sampling different force weights in each iteration of placement and selecting the best candidate placements based on an objective function. Our technique is not only very fast, but it does away with the need for the ad hoc scaling that has plagued prior force-directed methods. We describe the implementation of our method within a multilevel flow and show that it can achieve good wire lengths with competitive run-times compared to other academic tools. Specifically, we produce placements with 12% and 15% better HPWL than FengShui 5.0 and Capo 9.1, respectively, on the ICCAD04 mixed-size benchmarks, while presenting run-times that are 37% faster than Capo 9.1.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.207 · 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