Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work provides an empirical analysis on the fidelity of the VPR area models. Both the original minimum width transistor area model and the new COFFE model are compared against actual layouts with up to 3 metal layers of the various FPGA building blocks. We found that both models have significant variations with respect to the actual layout area. Most importantly both models offer relatively low fidelity in layout area estimation with the widely used original VPR model overestimates layout area of larger buffers and full adders by as much as 22%-34% while underestimates the layout area of smaller buffers and multiplexers by as much as -43%. The newer COFFE model also significantly overestimates the layout area of a full adder by 13% and underestimates the layout area of multiplexers by -55% to -30%. Such a variation is particularly significant considering many previous architectural studies based on these models have differentiated architectures based on the area or area delay product variations as low as a few percentage points. Our results suggest that the actual layout area must be used to achieve a highly accurate FPGA area model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".