MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GraphNoC: Graph Neural Networks for Application-Specific FPGA NoC Performance Prediction

2024· article· en· W4413278482 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Memory and Neural Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField-programmable gate arrayComputer scienceArtificial neural networkComputer architectureGraphParallel computingEmbedded systemArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We can democratize design of FPGA Network-on-Chips by replacing slow and expensive conventional NoC benchmarking tools with highly accurate and fast Graph Neural Networks based models. FPGA reconfigurability allows for tuning and designing of NoCs specific to the application being implemented on the FPGA, a facility not afforded to ASIC NoCs. However, such application-specific NoC designs can require thousands of incremental updates and customization to the NoC design, with each resulting NoC configuration needing benchmarking for packet performance to guide the design process. Additionally, each of these benchmark runs can take up to minutes with conventional tools like RTL simulation for modest packet trace lengths. As a result, tuning and design of a NoC even for a single FPGA application can last up to days, presenting a critical bottleneck to developer efficiency and iteration speed. We address this by presenting a framework to encode any FPGA NoC and any FPGA application traffic into graphs, called GraphNoC. We create a dataset of these graphs, comprising of different FPGA NoCs and applications. We use this dataset to train GNNs, including foundation models, to predict NoC routing latencies that can accelerate benchmarking run-times by up to <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$148 \times(506 \times$</tex> using GPU) with prediction top-20 accuracies up to 97.2 %. We also show these GNNs can accelerate end-to-end FPGA application-specific NoC design by up to <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$4.3 \times$</tex> (<tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$37 \times$</tex> using GPU) while regressing final NoC latency by only 30 cycles.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Memory and Neural ComputingFrench-language works237,207