A power evaluation framework for FPGA applications and CAD experimentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) consume roughly 14 times more dynamic power than Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) making it challenging to incorporate FPGAs in low-power applications. To bridge the gap, power consumption in FPGAs needs to be addressed at the application, Computer-Aided Design (CAD) tool, architecture, and circuit levels. The ability to properly evaluate proposals to reduce the power dissipation of FPGAs requires a realistic and accurate experimental framework. Mature FPGA power models are flexible, but can suffer from poor accuracy due to estimations on signal activity and simplifications. Additionally, run-time increases with the size of the design. Other techniques use unrealistic assumptions while physically measuring the power of a circuit running on an FPGA. Neither of these techniques can accurately portray the power consumption of FPGA circuits. We propose a framework to allow FPGA researchers to evaluate the impact of proposals for the reduction of power in FPGAs. The framework consists of a real-world System-on-Chip (SoC) and can be used to explore algorithmic and CAD techniques, by providing the ability to measure the power at run-time. High-level access to common low-level power-management techniques, such as clock gating, Dynamic Frequency Scaling (DFS), and Dynamic Partial Reconfiguration (DPR), is provided. We demonstrate our framework by evaluating the effects of pipelining and DPR on power. We also reason why our framework is necessary by showing that it provides different conclusions than that of previous work.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".