RLPlace: Using Reinforcement Learning and Smart Perturbations to Optimize FPGA Placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simulated annealing (SA) is one of the most common FPGA placement techniques, and is used both as a standalone algorithm and to improve an initial analytical placement. While SA-based placers can achieve high-quality results, they suffer from long runtimes. In this article, we introduceRLPlace, a novel SA-based FPGA placer that utilizes both reinforcement learning (RL) and targeted perturbations (directed moves). The proposed moves target both wirelength and timing optimization and explore the solution space more efficiently than traditional random moves while preventing oscillation in the Quality of Results (QoR). RL techniques are used to dynamically select the most effective move types as optimization progresses. The experimental results show thatRLPlaceoutperforms the widely used VTR 8 placer across all runtime/quality tradeoff points, achieving better QoR placement solutions in less runtime. On average, across the Titan23 suite of large FPGA benchmarks, RLPlace can reduce CPU time by$2.5\times $with result quality comparable to VTR 8, or improve wirelength by 8% (at a high CPU time budget) −26% (at a low CPU time budget) versus VTR 8.0 given the same CPU time.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".