MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235108696 · doi:10.1109/ishls.1994.302332

A divide-and-conquer approach for asynchronous interface synthesis

2002· article· en· W4235108696 on OpenAlexaff
Ruchir Puri, Jiayi Gu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersChengdu University of Information Technology
KeywordsAsynchronous communicationComputer scienceDivide and conquer algorithmsInterface (matter)High-level synthesisGraphTheoretical computer scienceDigital electronicsComputer engineeringComputer architectureDistributed computingParallel computingElectronic circuitAlgorithmEmbedded systemComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asynchronous circuits are crucial in designing low power, high performance digital systems. They are widely used in many real time applications such as digital communication and computer systems. The design of complex asynchronous interface circuits is a difficult and error-prone task. We present an area and time efficient synthesis algorithm for general signal transition graph (STG) specifications. It utilizes a divide-and-conquer approach to significantly reduce the number of design constraints. Thus, large size specifications can be synthesized in a very short execution time. We further developed a BDD based constraint satisfaction algorithm that exploits the don't cares for area efficient synthesis. Experimental results with a large number of practical signal transition graph benchmarks are presented. These results show that compared to the existing techniques, the divide-and-conquer technique is capable of achieving an average of 20% reduction in implementation area for all the benchmarks and it offers a practical solution for the complex asynchronous interface design problems.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207