Heuristics for Area Minimization in LUT-Based FPGA Technology Mapping
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, an iterative technology-mapping tool called IMap is presented. It supports depth-oriented (area is a secondary objective), area-oriented (depth is a secondary objective), and duplication-free mapping modes. The edge-delay model (as opposed to the more commonly used unit-delay model) is used throughout. Two new heuristics are used to obtain area reductions over previously published methods. The first heuristic predicts the effects of various mapping decisions on the area of the final solution, and the second heuristic bounds the depth of the mapping solution at each node. In depth-oriented mode, when targeting five lookup tables (LUTs), IMap obtains depth optimal solutions that are 44.4%, 19.4%, and 5% smaller than those produced by FlowMap, CutMap, and DAOMap, respectively. Targeting the same LUT size in area-oriented mode, IMap obtains solutions that are 17.5% and 9.4% smaller than those produced by duplication-free mapping and ZMap, respectively. IMap is also shown to be highly efficient. Runtime improvements of between 2.3times and 82times are obtained over existing algorithms when targeting five LUTs. Area and runtime results comparing IMap to the other mappers when targeting four and six LUTs are also presented
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it