MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150281391 · doi:10.1109/cicc.1997.606687

Cluster-based logic blocks for FPGAs: area-efficiency vs. input sharing and size

2002· article· en· W2150281391 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField-programmable gate arrayLogic blockComputer scienceLookup tableCluster (spacecraft)Key (lock)Parallel computingRouting (electronic design automation)Cluster sizeBlock (permutation group theory)Logic gateLogic synthesisLogic optimizationComputer architectureArithmeticComputer hardwareEmbedded systemAlgorithmMathematicsComputer networkOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While modern FPGAs often contain clusters of 4-input lookup tables and flip flops, little is known about good choices for two key architectural parameters: the number of these basic logic elements (BLEs) in each cluster, and the total number of distinct inputs that the programmable routing can provide to each cluster. In this paper we explore the effect of these parameters on FPGA area-efficiency. We show that a cluster containing N BLEs needs only 2N+2 distinct inputs (vs. the 4N maximum) to achieve complete logic utilization. Secondly, we find that a cluster size of 4 is most area-efficient, and leads to an FPGA that is 5-10% more area-efficient than an FPGA based on a single BLE logic block.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.221
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Quick stats

Citations149
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207