MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235520433 · doi:10.1109/aspdac.2004.1337565

An approach for reducing dynamic power consumption in synchronous sequential digital designs

2004· article· en· W4235520433 on OpenAlexaff
Noureddine Chabini, Marilyn Wolf

Bibliographic record

VenueASP-DAC 2004: Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference 2004 (IEEE Cat. No.04EX753) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetimingDynamic voltage scalingComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)ScalingSequential logicDynamic demandCombinational logicPower (physics)Digital electronicsVoltageParallel computingAlgorithmElectronic circuitLogic gateMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of minimizing dynamic power consumption by scaling down the supply voltage of computational elements off critical paths is widely addressed in the literature for the case of combinational designs. The problem is NP-hard in general. To address this problem in the case of synchronous sequential digital designs, one needs to move some registers while applying voltage scaling. Moving these registers shifts some computational elements from critical paths, and can be done by basic retiming. Integrating basic retiming and voltage scaling to address this NP-hard problem cannot in general be done in polynomial run-time. We propose to first apply a guided retiming and then to apply supply voltage scaling on the retimed design. We devise new polynomial time algorithms to realize this guided retiming, and the supply voltage scaling on the retimed design. Experimental results on known benchmarks have shown that the proposed approach can reduce dynamic power consumption by factors as high as 61% for single-phase designs with minimal clock period. Also, they have shown that it can solve optimally the problem, and produce converter-free designs with reduced dynamic power consumption. For large size circuits from ISCAS'89 benchmark suite, the proposed algorithms run in 15s-1h.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.224 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASP-DAC 2004: Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference 2004 (IEEE Cat. No.04EX753)Same topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207