MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023260388 · doi:10.1109/tvlsi.2004.831478

Power estimation techniques for FPGAs

2004· article· en· W3023260388 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Anderson, Farid N. Najm

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelay calculationField-programmable gate arrayComputer scienceRouting (electronic design automation)CapacitanceNoise (video)Electronic engineeringLogic gateLogic synthesisInterconnectionDynamic demandGate arrayMinimum bounding boxCMOSProgrammable logic arrayPower (physics)AlgorithmEmbedded systemEngineeringArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dynamic power consumed by a digital CMOS circuit is directly proportional to both switching activity and interconnect capacitance. In this paper, we consider early prediction of net activity and interconnect capacitance in field-programmable gate array (FPGA) designs. We develop empirical prediction models for these parameters, suitable for use in power-aware layout synthesis, early power estimation/planning, and other applications. We examine how switching activity on a net changes when delays are zero (zero delay activity) versus when logic delays are considered (logic delay activity) versus when both logic and routing delays are considered (routed delay activity). We then describe a novel approach for prelayout activity prediction that estimates a net's routed delay activity using only zero or logic delay activity values, along with structural and functional circuit properties. For capacitance prediction, we show that prediction accuracy is improved by considering aspects of the FPGA interconnect architecture in addition to generic parameters, such as net fanout and bounding box perimeter length. We also demonstrate that there is an inherent variability (noise) in the switching activity and capacitance of nets that limits the accuracy attainable in prediction. Experimental results show the proposed prediction models work well given the noise limitations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) SystemsSame topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207