MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162694675 · doi:10.1109/iccd.2008.4751836

A parallel Steiner tree heuristic for macro cell routing

2008· article· en· W2162694675 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Fobel, Gary Gréwal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteiner tree problemComputer scienceRouting (electronic design automation)Tree (set theory)HeuristicParameterized complexityVery-large-scale integrationMacroSet (abstract data type)Parallel computingAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsComputer networkCombinatoricsArtificial intelligenceEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global routing of macro cells remains an important but time-consuming step in the VLSI design cycle. Macro cells are large, irregularly sized parameterized circuit modules that typically contain large numbers of terminals that must be interconnected. The interconnection pattern for each set of terminals (net) that must be connected is a Steiner tree, and the primary sub-problem in the global routing of macro cells is to find a set of dissimilar, low-cost Steiner trees for each net that must be routed. In this paper, a two-phase, parallel (multi-processor) algorithm is proposed for quickly constructing a diverse pool of high-quality Steiner trees for routing of multi-terminal nets. In the first phase, a single Steiner tree is constructed using a heuristic, called Shrubbery. Then, in the second phase, a pool of dissimilar, high-quality trees are created from the original tree, by running multiple instances of a local search in parallel. Computational experiments performed on over 800 commonly used benchmarks show that running multiple instances of the local search in parallel results in near-linear speed-up over the serial case. Most importantly, the trees produced are both high-quality and dissimilar, allowing for numerous routing possibilities for each net.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207