CR&P: An Efficient Co-operation between Routing and Placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Placement and Routing (P&R) are two main steps of the physical design flow implementation. Traditionally, because of their complexity, these two steps are performed separately. But the implementation of the physical design in advanced technology nodes shows that the performance of these two steps is tied to each other. Therefore, creating efficient co-operation between the routing and placement steps has become a hot topic in Electronic Design Automation (EDA). In this work, to achieve an efficient collaboration between the routing and placement engines, an iterative replacement and rerouting framework facilitated with an Integer Linear Programming (ILP)-based legalizer is proposed and tested on the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Physical Design (ISPD) 2018 contest's benchmarks. Numerical results show that the proposed framework can improve detailed routing vias and wirelength by 2.06% and 0.14% on average in a reasonable runtime without adding new Design Rule Violations (DRVs). The proposed framework can be considered as an add-on to the physical design flow between global routing and detailed routing.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".