MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297418419 · doi:10.14288/1.0092104

Bridging the gap between soft and hard eFPGA design

2009· article· en· W2297418419 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEmbedded Systems Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Potential cost savings that come from the ability to make post fabrication changes in System-on-Chip (SoC) designs make embeddable Field Programmable Gate Array (eFPGA) cores an attractive design option. However, they are only available as "hard" macros from vendors as a small number of fixed size cores, and may not be optimal in terms of area, power or delay for a given SoC. A "soft" eFPGA methodology [01] [02] based on the ASIC design flow was used to create small amounts of programmable logic but incurs significant overhead. In this thesis, it is shown that this overhead can be reduced by deploying architecture-specific tactical standard cells in the ASIC flow, making eFPGA generation configurable, and imposing a regular structure on eFPGA architectures. For the set of benchmarks considered, the use of tactical standard cells resulted in area and delay savings of 58% and 40% respectively, when compared to cores implemented with generic standard cells [02]. Also, a proposed IP-generator-based approach for eFPGA design is shown to achieve results that are competitive with commercial full-custom hard eFPGA cores. For example, for some large benchmark circuits (over 1000 4-LUTs) the generated eFPGA fabrics were up to 40% smaller than available hard eFPGA cores. Finally, it is shown that a regular structured architecture makes it possible to generate fabrics with logic capacities that gready exceed what was previously possible [02] [15]. In addition, a structured layout approach yielded a 36% reduction (average) in wire lengths.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen CollectionsSame topicEmbedded Systems Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207