Bibliographic record
Abstract
We can extract approximate, fine-grained timing information of routing resources of Xilinx FPGAs using the RapidWright open-source framework. The absence of timing information makes it difficult to implement timing-aware FPGA CAD tools using RapidWright. It is impractical to invoke Vivado's timing analysis engine for each choice within an optimization loop of your custom CAD algorithm as that would slow down execution by orders of magnitude. We route a set of one-time calibration tests on the FPGA using Vivado to extract path delays, and setup a system of linear equations based on the unknown delays associated with each routing resource used in the calibration route. We run this calibration for an interconnect tile but generalize the result to the entire FPGA due to device symmetry. We then solve these equations using least squares approximation as the resulting system is low-rank. This is due to the routing restrictions imposed by the FPGA fabric for legality of the connection and correctness of Vivado's timing analysis. We are able to learn an approximate timing model for RapidWright that is within 1% error (0.01ns) of Vivado timing analysis by running ?30 calibration runs and needing under 60 seconds of Vivado timing analysis. We demonstrate this technique on Xilinx XCKU115 FPGA (-3, -2, and -1 speed grades). The open-source RapidRoute custom router previously lost to Vivado by as much as 0.3-0.4 ns on timing slack when using a crude timing model. With our timing model enhancements, we allow RapidRoute to close the slack gap with Vivado and even outperform Vivado marginally on occasion. Our timing model generation is lightweight and can be discovered for each FPGA device instead of bundling memory-hungry timing libraries with RapidWright.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".