FRIDA: Reconfigurable Arrays for Dynamically Scheduled High-Level Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reconfigurable computing fabrics include FPGAs and CGRAs. FPGAs offer flexible bit-level reconfigurability and can map almost any program via high-level synthesis (HLS) compilers, but they incur high area and speed overheads compared to ASICs. CGRAs, in contrast, provide ASIC-like performance but limited flexibility, typically supporting only feedforward programs with unambiguous memory accesses, far from the capabilities of HLS compilers. This work introduces a new class of reconfigurable arrays inspired by modern dynamically scheduled HLS (DHLS) tools. Unlike traditional HLS, DHLS compilers no longer produce explicit state machines, eliminating the need for look-up tables. Instead, they delegate scheduling decisions to a set of coarse-grained primitives. Our arrays leverage these primitives as processing elements and combine FPGA-style interconnect topology for high routing flexibility with CGRA-like bus-based interconnect. We present a framework to explore these arrays and evaluate a preliminary architecture using DHLS benchmarks. The results show an average of ~2× speed improvement, but unfortunately only a ~20% area reduction compared to an FPGA implemented on the same technology node.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".