MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593282265 · doi:10.1109/mwscas.2016.7869975

Experimental evaluation and comparison of time-multiplexed multi-FPGA routing architectures

2016· article· en· W2593282265 on OpenAlexaff
Asmeen Kashif, Mohammed Khalid

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField-programmable gate arrayComputer scienceMultiplexingBenchmark (surveying)Routing (electronic design automation)Electronic circuitLogic synthesisTime-division multiplexingLogic gateParallel computingEmbedded systemComputer hardwareAlgorithmEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-FPGA systems (MFS) are indispensable for emulating multi-million gates integrated circuits (ICs) for the purpose of functional design verification before IC fabrication. However, with every new generation of FPGAs, the ratio between the logic capacity and the number of inputs and outputs is also increasing. Consequently, the limited FPGA input/output (I/O) pins impose a constraint when the number of inter-FPGA nets greatly exceeds the inter-FPGA physical tracks. This problem is addressed by serializing multiple cut nets using time multiplexing technique. Besides I/O resources, routing architecture also exercises a strong effect on the cost, speed and routability of MFS. In this paper, we compare the achieved system performance in two routing architectures: Completely Connected Graph (CCG) and Torus, when time multiplexing is employed. Six benchmark circuits have been partitioned such that per FPGA logic utilization is upto 60%. However, even with such reasonable logic consumption, the required I/O usage is observed to be 5-11 times more than the available I/O pins, thus employing time multiplexing. Experimental results show that CCG achieves higher performance as compared to Torus for the given range of TDM ratios. However, Torus can provide better cost/performance ratio for higher TDM ratios.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207