Area-Driven FPGA Logic Synthesis Using Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Logic synthesis involves a rich set of optimization algorithms applied in a specific sequence to a circuit netlist prior to technology mapping. A conventional approach is to apply a fixed "recipe" of such algorithms deemed to work well for a wide range of different circuits. We apply reinforcement learning (RL) to determine a unique recipe of algorithms for each circuit. Feature-importance analysis is conducted using a random-forest classifier to prune the set of features visible to the RL agent. We demonstrate conclusive learning by the RL agent and show significant FPGA area reductions vs. the conventional approach (resyn2). In addition to circuit-by-circuit training and inference, we also train an RL agent on multiple circuits, and then apply the agent to optimize: 1) the same set of circuits on which it was trained, and 2) an alternative set of "unseen" circuits. In both scenarios, we observe that the RL agent produces higher-quality implementations than the conventional approach. This shows that the RL agent is able to generalize, and perform beneficial logic synthesis optimizations across a variety of circuits.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".