RapidLayout: Fast Hard Block Placement of FPGA-optimized Systolic Arrays using Evolutionary Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolutionary algorithms can outperform conventional placement algorithms such as simulated annealing, analytical placement as well as manual placement on metrics such as runtime, wirelength, pipelining cost, and clock frequency when mapping FPGA hard block intensive designs such as systolic arrays on Xilinx UltraScale+ FPGAs. For certain hard-block intensive, systolic array accelerator designs, the commercial-grade Xilinx Vivado CAD tool is unable to provide a legal routing solution without tedious manual placement constraints. Instead, we formulate an automatic FPGA placement algorithm for these hard blocks as a multi-objective optimization problem that targets wirelength squared and maximum bounding box size metrics. We build an end-to-end placement and routing flow called RapidLayout using the Xilinx RapidWright framework. RapidLayout runs 5-6$\times$ faster than Vivado with manual constraints and eliminates the weeks-long effort to generate placement constraints manually for the hard blocks. We also perform automated post-placement pipelining of the long wires inside each convolution block to target 650MHz URAM-limited operation. RapidLayout outperforms (1) the simulated annealer in VPR by 33% in runtime, 1.9-2.4$\times$ in wirelength, and 3-4$\times$ in bounding box size, while also (2) beating the analytical placer UTPlaceF by 9.3$\times$ in runtime, 1.8-2.2$\times$ in wirelength, and 2-2.7$\times$ in bounding box size. We employ transfer learning from a base FPGA device to speed-up placement optimization for similar FPGA devices in the UltraScale+ family by 11-14$\times$ than learning the placements from scratch.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".