MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336236367 · doi:10.1145/2899381

Eh?Placer

2016· article· en· W2336236367 on OpenAlexafffund
Nima Karimpour Darav, Andrew Kennings, Aysa Fakheri Tabrizi, David T. Westwick, Laleh Behjat

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Calgary
FundersChinese University of Hong KongUniversity of Hong KongAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsPlacer miningComputer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Process (computing)Physical designFocus (optics)Margin (machine learning)Industrial engineeringGeologyArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageIntegrated circuitMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The placement problem has become more complex and challenging due to a wide variety of complicated constraints imposed by modern process technologies. Some of the most challenging constraints and objectives were highlighted during the most recent ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Physical Design (ISPD) contests. In this article, the framework of Eh?Placer and its developed algorithms are elaborated, with the main focus on modern technology constraints and runtime. The technology constraints considered as part of Eh?Placer are fence region, target density, and detailed routability constraints. We present a complete description on how these constraints are considered in different stages of Eh?Placer. The results obtained from the contests indicate that Eh?Placer is able to efficiently handle modern technology constraints and ranks highly among top academic placement tools.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.010

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.204 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations41
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic SystemsSame topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207