EDAML 2022 Invited Speaker 5: Combining Optimization and Machine Learning in Physical Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The exponential increase in computing power and the availability of big data have ignited innovations in EDA. The most recent trend in innovations has involved using machine learning algorithms for solving problems of scale. Machine learning techniques can solve large-scale problems efficiently once they are trained. However, their training takes a large amount of computing power and might not translate well from one type of problem to another. On the other hand, many of the existing algorithms in physical design take advantage of mathematical optimization techniques to improve their solution quality. These techniques can find optimal or near-optimal solutions using fast heuristics. These techniques do not require a large amount of data but need some level of insight into the nature of the problem by the designer. The mathematical optimization techniques rely heavily on the developed models. In this talk, we will discuss how machine learning can be used to develop better models for optimization problems and how optimization techniques can then use the models to generate more data to improve the accuracy and robustness of machine learning techniques. We will first discuss the algorithm-driven nature of the optimization techniques and compare that to the data-driven nature of the machine learning techniques. We will use examples of physical design placement and routing. Then, we will discuss how optimization and ML can be used to solve the problems of scale both in numbers and transistor sizes. We will also discuss how reinforcement learning can be used to come up with new heuristics for solving the problems encountered in physical design. The talk will end with some practical suggestions on how to improve the quality and speed of the design.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.134 | 0.063 |
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".