MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168296432 · doi:10.1109/tvlsi.2008.2011555

FPGA Design for Timing Yield Under Process Variations

2009· article· en· W2168296432 on OpenAlexaff
Akhilesh Kumar, Mohab Anis

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLow-power high-performance VLSI design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField-programmable gate arrayLogic synthesisProcess (computing)Static timing analysisComputer scienceReconfigurable computingYield (engineering)Logic gateCircuit designIntegrated circuit designProcess variationProgrammable Array LogicEmbedded systemElectronic engineeringLogic familyEngineeringAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yield loss due to timing failures results in diminished returns for field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), and is aggravated under increased process variations in scaled technologies. The uncertainty in the critical delay of a circuit under process variations exists because the delay of each logic element in the circuit is no longer deterministic. Traditionally, FPGAs have been designed to manage process variations through speed binning, which works well for inter-die variations, but not for intra-die variations resulting in reduced timing yield for FPGAs. FPGAs present a unique challenge because of their programmability and unknown end user application. In this paper, a novel architecture and computer-aided design co-design technique is proposed to improve the timing yield. Experimental results indicate that the use of proposed design technique can achieve timing yield improvement of up to 68%.

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)0.001
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) SystemsSame topicLow-power high-performance VLSI designFrench-language works237,207