MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408151444 · doi:10.1145/3658617.3697721

MTLSO: A Multi-Task Learning Approach for Logic Synthesis Optimization

2025· article· en· W4408151444 on OpenAlexaff
Faezeh Faez, Raika Karimi, Yingxue Zhang, Xing Li, Lei Chen, Mingxuan Yuan, Mahdi Biparva

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)Artificial intelligenceMulti-task learningMachine learningSystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electronic Design Automation (EDA) is essential for IC design and has recently benefited from AI-based techniques to improve efficiency. Logic synthesis, a key EDA stage, transforms high-level hardware descriptions into optimized netlists. Recent research has employed machine learning to predict Quality of Results (QoR) for pairs of And-Inverter Graphs (AIGs) and synthesis recipes. However, the severe scarcity of data due to a very limited number of available AIGs results in overfitting, significantly hindering performance. Additionally, the complexity and large number of nodes in AIGs make plain GNNs less effective for learning expressive graph-level representations. To tackle these challenges, we propose MTLSO - a Multi-Task Learning approach for Logic Synthesis Optimization. On one hand, it maximizes the use of limited data by training the model across different tasks. This includes introducing an auxiliary task of binary multi-label graph classification alongside the primary regression task, allowing the model to benefit from diverse supervision sources. On the other hand, we employ a hierarchical graph representation learning strategy to improve the model's capacity for learning expressive graph-level representations of large AIGs, surpassing traditional plain GNNs. Extensive experiments across multiple datasets and against state-of-the-art baselines demonstrate the superiority of our method, achieving an average performance gain of 8.22% for delay and 5.95% for area.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207