Dataset for EASY: Efficient Arbiter SYnthesis from Multi-threaded Code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-Level Synthesis (HLS) tools automatically transform a high level specification of a circuit into a low-level RTL description. Traditionally, HLS tools have operated on sequential code, however in recent years there has been a drive to synthesize multi-threaded code. A major challenge facing HLS tools in this context is how to automatically partition memory amongst parallel threads to fully exploit the bandwidth available on an FPGA device and avoid memory contention. Current automatic memory partitioning techniques have inefficient arbitration due to conservative assumptions regarding which threads may access a given memory bank. In this paper, we address this problem through formal verification techniques, permitting a less conservative, yet provably correct circuit to be generated. We perform a static analysis on the code to determine which memory banks are shared by which threads. This analysis enables us to optimize the arbitration efficiency of the generated circuit. We apply our approach to the LegUp HLS tool and show for a set of typical application benchmarks we can achieve up to 87% area savings, and 39% execution time improvement, with little additional compilation time. This repository includes all the measured results for this work.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.032 |
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".