Desired Footprint by Technology Mapping Modification using a Genetic Algorithm in Odin II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technology mapping is the transformation of a general Boolean logic network into a functional equivalent K-LUT network that can be implemented by the target FPGA device. Because an FPGA architecture is pre-determined, technology mapping is limited to the available resources. However, circuits can be optimized before the low-level synthesis phase. Odin II, part of the Verilog-to-routing project, is responsible for synthesis and elaboration. In the partial mapping phase of Odin II, some modifications are still possible for high-level modules-adder, multiplier-when there is no hard block available. When Odin II performs partial mapping to create soft logic, we can choose which implementation of a high-level module works best with respect to the desired goals: area versus speed. In this paper, we describe a method to modify circuit characteristics based on placement criteria. More specifically, after partial mapping circuit components during Verilog HDL code synthesis, there are still potential modifications in soft-logic circuit generation. We propose using a genetic algorithm during synthesis to adjust soft-logic circuit implementation in order to achieve the desired synthesis goal. We show that the approach provides promising results for a marginal cost in runtime.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".