REVIEW 1 cited by
On Joint Learning for Solving Placement and Routing in Chip Design
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
For its advantage in GPU acceleration and less dependency on human experts, machine learning has been an emerging tool for solving the placement and routing problems, as two critical steps in modern chip design flow. Being still in its early stage, there are fundamental issues: scalability, reward design, and end-to-end learning paradigm etc. To achieve end-to-end placement learning, we first propose a joint learning method termed by DeepPlace for the placement of macros and standard cells, by the integration of reinforcement learning with a gradient based optimization scheme. To further bridge the placement with the subsequent routing task, we also develop a joint learning approach via reinforcement learning to fulfill both macro placement and routing, which is called DeepPR. One key design in our (reinforcement) learning paradigm involves a multi-view embedding model to encode both global graph level and local node level information of the input macros. Moreover, the random network distillation is devised to encourage exploration. Experiments on public chip design benchmarks show that our method can effectively learn from experience and also provides intermediate placement for the post standard cell placement, within few hours for training.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
DAS-MP: Enabling High-Quality Macro Placement with Enhanced Dataflow Awareness
DAS-MP extracts macro-to-cell and cell-to-cell dataflow connections and adds area-aware and orientation fine-tuning, reporting 7.9% lower wirelength and 82.5% lower congestion overflow than RTL-MP on seven benchmarks.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.