Programming and Synthesis for Software-defined FPGA Acceleration: Status and Future Prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
FPGA-based accelerators are increasingly popular across a broad range of applications, because they offer massive parallelism, high energy efficiency, and great flexibility for customizations. However, difficulties in programming and integrating FPGAs have hindered their widespread adoption. Since the mid 2000s, there has been extensive research and development toward making FPGAs accessible to software-inclined developers, besides hardware specialists. Many programming models and automated synthesis tools, such as high-level synthesis, have been proposed to tackle this grand challenge. In this survey, we describe the progression and future prospects of the ongoing journey in significantly improving the software programmability of FPGAs. We first provide a taxonomy of the essential techniques for building a high-performance FPGA accelerator, which requires customizations of the compute engines, memory hierarchy, and data representations. We then summarize a rich spectrum of work on programming abstractions and optimizing compilers that provide different trade-offs between performance and productivity. Finally, we highlight several additional challenges and opportunities that deserve extra attention by the community to bring FPGA-based computing to the masses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".