Variation-Aware Geometric Programming Models for the Clock Network Buffer Sizing Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present and analyze four efficient models that produce significantly improved results by optimizing conflicting power and skew objectives in the clock network buffer sizing problem. Each model is in geometric programming format and has certain advantages, such as maximum reduction in power, robustness to process variation, and striking a balance between skew and power optimization. The buffer sizing problem is formulated as a geometric programming problem to provide globally optimal solutions to the four models. We also show that a geometric programming multiobjective model can be used to optimize both power and skew without requiring any tuning from a designer. The presented self-tuning multiobjective formulation not only provides optimal solutions for buffer sizes, but also finds the tuning parameters that result in overall combined reduction in power and skew without loss of convexity. The effectiveness of the models are illustrated on several publicly available benchmarks. The models provide on average 40% to 60% improvement in power while reducing skew in several cases. We have also proposed a smart heuristic for discretization of the continuous geometric programming solution that preserves skew and power. Finally, we provide a guideline for designers to decide which one of the proposed models is the most appropriate for their needs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".