MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147506855 · doi:10.1109/tvlsi.2004.827562

Design of FPGA interconnect for multilevel metallization

2004· article· en· W2147506855 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
André DeHon, Raphael Rubin

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField-programmable gate arrayInterconnectionRouting (electronic design automation)Computer scienceExploitGate arrayTopology (electrical circuits)Embedded systemArityEngineeringElectrical engineeringComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How does multilevel metallization impact the design of field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA) interconnect? The availability of a growing number of metal layers presents the opportunity to use wiring in the third dimension to reduce area and switch requirements. Unfortunately, traditional FPGA wiring schemes are not designed to exploit these additional metal layers. We introduce an alternate topology, based on Leighton's mesh-of-trees (MoT), which carefully exploits hierarchy to allow additional metal layers to support arbitrary device scaling. When wiring layers grow sufficiently fast with aggregate network size (N), our network requires only O(N) area; this is in stark contrast to traditional, Manhattan FPGA routing schemes where switching requirements alone grow superlinearly in N. In practice, we show that, even for the admittedly small designs in the Toronto "FPGA Place and Route Challenge," arity-4 MoT networks require 26% fewer switches than the standard, Manhattan FPGA routing scheme.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations46
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) SystemsSame topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207