Eh?Legalizer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The legalization step is performed after global placement where wire length and routability are optimized or during timing optimization where buffer insertion or gate sizing are applied to meet timing requirements. Therefore, an ideal legalization approach must preserve the quality of the input placement in terms of routability, wire length, and timing constraints. These requirements indirectly impose maximum and average cell movement constraints during legalization. In addition, the legalization step should effectively manage white space availability with a highly efficient runtime in order to be used in an iterative process such as timing optimization. In this article, a robust and fast legalization method called Eh?Legalizer for standard-cell placement is presented. Eh?Legalizer legalizes input placements while minimizing the maximum and average cell movements using a highly efficient novel network flow-based approach. In contrast to the traditional network flow-based legalizers, areas with high cell utilizations are effectively legalized by finding several candidate paths and there is no need for a post-process step. The experimental results conducted on several benchmarks show that Eh?Legalizer results in 2.5 times and 3.3 times less the maximum and average cell movement, respectively, while its runtime is significantly (18×) lower compared to traditional legalizers. In addition, the experimental results illustrate the scalability and robustness of Eh?Legalizer with respect to the floorplan complexity. Finally, the detailed-routing results show detailed-routing violations are reduced on average by 23% when Eh?Legalizer is used to generate legal solutions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 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".