Towards a Reference Place and Route Flow for Academic Research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the complexity of contemporary circuits, physical synthesis has become a crucial step for achieving design closure. The placement of cells direct impacts the routing solution. For example, a region with a high cell density can lead to pin access issues in detailed routing. Therefore, small inefficiencies in the placement solution can be boosted during routing, which has a negative impact on design quality and convergence. Unfortunately, most academic research works evaluate the results only in the target step without considering the complete place and route flows. In this work, we experimentally explored different flows built up from academic placers and routers to find which one leads to the best overall results so that researchers can use them as a reference. In order to evaluate those flows, we used the ISPD 2018 and ISPD 2019 CAD Contest benchmarks, which are the most realistic academic benchmarks available with placement and routing information. Considering the evaluator reports, no combination of tools achieved the best result for all circuits. Nevertheless, the flow Contest placement + CUGR + TritonRoute achieved the best results in fifteen out of twenty benchmarks.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it