MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249099118 · doi:10.1145/611851.611875

Synthetic circuit generation using clustering and iteration

2003· article· en· W4249099118 on OpenAlexaff
Paul D. Kundarewich, Jonathan Rose

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Electronic circuitCluster analysisComputer engineeringRouting (electronic design automation)Path (computing)NetlistAlgorithmEmbedded systemEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of next-generation CAD tools and FPGA architectures requires benchmark circuits to experiment with new algorithms and architectures. There has always been a shortage of good public benchmarks for these purposes, and even companies that have access to proprietary customer designs could benefit from designs that meet size and other particular specifications. In this paper, we present a new method of generating realistic synthetic benchmark circuits to help alleviate this shortage. The method significantly improves the quality of previous work by imposing the natural hierarchy of circuits through clustering and by using a simpler method of characterizing the nature of sequential circuits. Also, in contrast to current constructive generation methods, we employ new iterative techniques in the generation that provide better control over the generated circuit s characteristics. As in previous work, we assess the realism of the generated circuits by comparing properties of real circuits and generated "clones" of the real circuit after placement and routing. On average, the real and clone circuits' total detailed wirelength differed by only 14%, a major improvement over previous results. In addition, the minimum track count was within 14% and the critical path delay was within 10%.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207