MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152435103 · doi:10.1109/fpt.2006.270299

Interconnect driver design for long wires in field-programmable gate arrays

2006· article· en· W3152435103 on OpenAlexaff
Edmund Lee, Guy Lemieux, Shahriar Mirabbasi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLow-power high-performance VLSI design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterconnectionField-programmable gate arrayNode (physics)Computer scienceTransistorPath (computing)Critical path methodSIGNAL (programming language)Electronic engineeringElectrical engineeringEmbedded systemEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Each new semiconductor technology node brings smaller transistors and wires. Although this makes transistors faster, wires get slower. As FPGA device designers strive to obtain the lowest possible circuit delays from a given technology node, they must take an increasingly interconnect-focused viewpoint in the design process. In particular, for long interconnect wires, signals now require rebuffering somewhere in the middle of the wire. This paper presents a framework for designing and evaluating long, buffered interconnect wires in FPGAs with near-optimal delay performance. Given a target physical wire length, width and spacing, the method determines the number, size, and position of buffers required to obtain the fastest signal velocity for programmable interconnect. A metric introduced during the design is the "path delay profile", or the arrival time of a signal at different points of a long wire. This method is used to design buffering strategies for interconnect based on 0.5mm, 2mm, and 3mm wire lengths in 180nm technology. These interconnect designs are coded into VPR along with an improved timing analyzer which accurately determines the "path delay profile" arrival times. Using VPR, average critical-path delay is reduced by 19% for 0.5mm wires and by up to 46% for 3mm wires over previous designs given in Lemieux et al. (2004)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLow-power high-performance VLSI designFrench-language works237,207