Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 46 references

PGR-DRC: Pre-Global Routing DRC Violation Prediction Using Unsupervised Learning

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A one-class Gaussian model, trained only on DRC-clean layout grids, predicts nearly all test violations and trains up to thousands of times faster than supervised networks.

desk verdict Sensible one-class DRC prediction idea, but the 99.95% accuracy claim is not credible because the threshold is tuned on validation and test grids share designs with training. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13355 v1 pith:E3YQJLVY submitted 2025-06-08 cs.AR cs.AIcs.LGcs.SYeess.SY

Riadul Islam , Dhandeep Challagundla This is my paper
classification cs.ARcs.AIcs.LGcs.SYeess.SY
keywords designrulecheckingDRCviolationpredictionunsupervisedlearninganomalydetectionGaussiandensityestimationphysicalflowpre-globalroutingplacementfeatures
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that DRC violation prediction can be recast as an unsupervised anomaly-detection problem. Instead of training on labeled examples of both clean and violating layout grids, the authors fit a Gaussian density only to grids known to be violation-free, set a threshold, and classify any new grid that falls below the threshold as a predicted violation. On roughly 60,000 grid samples from several 28-nm computational cores, they report 99.95% test accuracy, 100% recall (zero false negatives), 99.28% precision, and training times 26.3x shorter than an SVM and up to 6003x shorter than CNN-based models. If correct, this would make early DRC checking cheaper and easier to deploy, because the scarce resource in practice—labeled violation examples—is no longer needed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the factorized Gaussian density $f(x)=\prod_{i=1}^{n} f(x_i;\mu_i,\sigma_i^2)$ in Eq. (2), built from ten features whose histograms are transformed toward normality with log or square-root functions. The product form follows from the paper's stated statistical-independence assumption; the threshold on $f(x)$ is the entire decision rule, so the model's accuracy, precision, and zero-false-negative claims all depend on how well this density separates clean from violating grids.

What would settle it

Fit a full multivariate Gaussian with the 10x10 covariance matrix to the same violation-free training grids, choose the threshold by the same validation procedure, and compare test predictions. If the multivariate version reproduces 99.95% accuracy and zero false negatives, the independence assumption is harmless; if accuracy drops or false negatives appear, the reported numbers depend on the product form. Independently, a second check is to run the fitted model on a held-out 28-nm core not used in training and count missed violations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a one-class Gaussian model over ten pre-global-routing placement features—pin and cell densities, buried nets/cells/pins, intersecting pins/cells/nets, standard-cell count and area, and area utilization—is sufficient to predict DRC violations before detailed routing. The model computes the joint density as the product of one univariate Gaussian per feature, fits it to DRC-violation-free grids only, and chooses a threshold on the density; grids with density below the threshold are flagged. The paper reports that this method detects all violated validation and test samples (100% recall), with 99.95% test accuracy and a 99.64% F1 score, and that it outperforms the supervised SVM, random-forest, CNN, and PA-GNN baselines it compares against while cutting training time by up to three to four orders of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

The whole predictor assumes the ten placement features are statistically independent, so their joint probability is just the product of ten separate bell curves; if the features are correlated, the computed density and the threshold derived from it are miscalibrated, and the reported accuracy numbers may not survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A new block can be screened for DRC risk at the placement stage using only a set of clean reference grids, eliminating the need to label violation examples.
  • Because training is a one-class fit, updating the model for a new design or technology could take minutes instead of the hours reported for CNN baselines, making in-flow checks practical.
  • At 100% recall, no grid predicted clean should later produce a violation; if this holds beyond the test set, late-stage DRC iterations would shrink dramatically.
  • The ten placement features form a compact input representation, so the method needs no image-level layout rendering or global-routing congestion maps.
  • If the accuracy and speed comparisons transfer to other technology nodes, the same recipe—pick discriminative placement features, fit clean data only, threshold—applies beyond the 28-nm cores tested.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's independence factorization is likely optimistic: pin density, cell density, intersecting nets, and buried nets are all counts over the same grid and are correlated by construction. A natural test is to replace the product form with a multivariate Gaussian and see whether the threshold boundary moves.
  • The zero-false-negative rate was obtained on one 28-nm benchmark family with a fixed violation base rate. On designs with denser routing or different cell libraries, the threshold may need recalibration, otherwise recall is likely to degrade.
  • The same one-class recipe could be applied to other sparse defect-detection problems in physical design—pin-access violations, electromigration risks, or clock-tree violations—where clean samples are abundant and defects are rare.
  • At least part of the speed advantage is inherited from the product form: ten univariate fits are far cheaper than a full covariance estimate. If the independence assumption is abandoned, some of the 6003x training-time gain may be spent on estimating correlations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PGR-DRC, an unsupervised method for predicting design rule check (DRC) violations before global routing. The method fits a per-feature Gaussian distribution to DRC-violation-free grid data, multiplies the per-feature densities under a statistical independence assumption, and classifies a grid as violating if the joint score falls below a threshold chosen iteratively on a validation set. The authors collect about 60,000 grid samples from nine OpenCores designs synthesized in a 28 nm CMOS library, split the data into training/validation/test subsets, and report 99.95% test accuracy, 100% recall, 99.28% test precision, and training time reductions of up to 6003x relative to neural-network baselines.

Significance. If the reported results are valid and reproducible, the one-class unsupervised formulation would be a meaningful contribution to early-stage DRC hotspot prediction, since it avoids the class-imbalance and labeling requirements of supervised methods. The paper also documents a concrete feature-extraction flow from a standard P&R toolchain. However, the central empirical claims are not currently supported by the evaluation protocol: the train/test split shares design identity, the decision threshold is tuned on validation, baseline numbers are imported from other papers, and the independence assumption behind the density model is unexamined. The significance is therefore conditional on a substantially strengthened evaluation.

major comments (5)
  1. [IV.A and Abstract] The core generalization claim that the model can be 'fitting any new data' is not evaluated. The about 60k grid samples come from only nine OpenCores designs, and the 70/15/15 split is performed over grids, not over designs. Training and test grids therefore share design-specific placement, floorplan, and routing context, allowing the Gaussian model to memorize feature ranges of those particular designs. The paper reports 99.95% test accuracy, but this number does not establish out-of-design generalization. A leave-one-design-out evaluation, or a test on independent designs not used in training, is required to support the abstract's claim.
  2. [III and IV.A] Section III states that 'an iterative method can be applied to identify the best threshold value corresponding to the best prediction accuracy,' and Section IV.A states that 15% of the data are used for validation. Because the threshold is selected on validation data and the test grids come from the same nine designs as the validation grids, the reported 100% recall and 99.95% accuracy are best-case fitted quantities rather than independent estimates. The authors should either fix the threshold a priori, report the threshold and its sensitivity, or evaluate on held-out designs with the threshold chosen only from training/validation data of the known designs.
  3. [III, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) factorizes the joint density as a product of independent per-feature Gaussian densities, 'derived from the statistical independence assumption.' The ten features—including pin density, cell density, buried nets, intersecting nets, standard cell count, standard cell area, and area utilization—are correlated by construction, so the product density is not a correct joint density and the threshold boundary is miscalibrated. No correlation analysis, independence test, or multivariate Gaussian comparison is provided. At minimum, the authors should report feature correlation matrices and compare the product-of-marginals model with a full multivariate Gaussian model on the same evaluation protocol.
  4. [Table I and Section IV.B] The comparison numbers for SVM, random forest, PostGR CNN, PreGR CNN, and PA-GNN appear to be copied from their respective original publications, which use different designs, technology nodes, feature sets, and training procedures. Table I therefore does not provide a controlled comparison, and claims such as '14.51% better accuracy' or 'up to 6003x lower training time' are not established on a common benchmark. The authors should re-implement or re-train the baselines on their own dataset and protocol, or clearly label the comparison as a literature-reported reference rather than an experimental result.
  5. [IV.A and IV.B] The description of the class distribution is ambiguous: the text says 70% of DRC-violation-free data are used for training, 15% for validation, 15% for testing, and then 'this research only used 30% DRC violated data for validation and the rest of the data for testing.' It is unclear what fraction of validation and test grids contain violations and how the extreme class imbalance affects precision, recall, and accuracy. Reporting the confusion matrix and the false-positive rate would let readers interpret the 100% recall and 99.95% accuracy claims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2] The flow chart labels the first step 'Login Synthesis,' which appears to be a typo for 'Logic Synthesis.'
  2. [Table I] Numerous entries in Table I have collapsed columns (e.g., '99.8185.44', '98.398', '98.398.097.5'), making the table difficult to read; the formatting should be corrected.
  3. [Section III] The statement that 'Python libraries, which have built-in functions to transform the features automatically into a Gaussian distribution' is too vague to reproduce. The exact transformations (log, sqrt, Box-Cox, or other) and their parameters should be specified.
  4. [Abstract and Contribution list] The phrase 'first-ever unsupervised DRC violation prediction methodology' is an overclaim; unless a comprehensive literature search is provided, it should be softened to 'to the best of our knowledge.'
  5. [Section II, reference [10]] The claim that 'unsupervised learning always provides an almost constant rate of prediction accuracy in terms of precision and recall' is an overgeneralization and should be qualified with the specific conditions under which the cited result holds.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the one-class Gaussian fit and threshold classifier are independent of the reported test labels; threshold tuning on validation is standard model selection, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation is self-contained: it fits per-feature Gaussian densities to DRC-violation-free grids (labels from an external DRC tool), forms a product score in Eq. (2), and classifies new grids by comparing that score to a threshold. The reported test labels are not used to fit the Gaussian parameters, and the threshold is selected on a separate validation set ('An iterative method can be applied to identify the best threshold value corresponding to the best prediction accuracy,' Section III). This is ordinary model selection, not a case where a reported prediction is equivalent by construction to a fitted input. The independence factorization in Eq. (2) is statistically questionable because the ten features are correlated, but that is an accuracy/calibration concern rather than circularity: the product score is a fixed score function and the class labels come from an external DRC check. Self-citations appear in the background and comparison sections, but no load-bearing claim is justified solely by those citations; the central unsupervised method is evaluated against external baselines and the novelty claim is overstatement rather than circular renaming. The main weaknesses, such as same-design grid splits and validation-based threshold tuning, are generalization and evaluation-protocol risks, not definitional circularity. Therefore no prediction in the paper reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three tuned quantities (threshold, per-feature transforms, grid size) whose values are not reported, on four unverified modeling premises (independence, visual Gaussianity, CLT justification, same-design representativeness), and on no newly postulated physical entities. The threshold is the most consequential: it is the only decision boundary and is fit to maximize the metric the paper reports.

free parameters (3)
  • Decision threshold on the joint Gaussian score = not reported
    Section III: 'An iterative method can be applied to identify the best threshold value corresponding to the best prediction accuracy.' This cutoff is the entire decision boundary and is optimized on labeled validation data; the reported 99.95% test accuracy is a function of it.
  • Per-feature Gaussianizing transforms and constants = not reported
    Section III: log(x), log(x+1), log(x+constant), and sqrt are applied 'if the distribution is not closely Gaussian,' with the constant unspecified. Each choice changes the fitted marginals and the resulting boundary.
  • Virtual grid size and partition = not reported
    Section IV.A: layouts are 'divided into virtual grids' with no grid dimensions given; feature distributions, the ~1.6% violation prevalence, and the accuracy estimate are all grid-scale dependent.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Independence of the ten layout features, so the joint density factorizes into a product of per-feature Gaussians (Eq. 2).
    Section III: 'which is derived from the statistical independence assumption.' Pin and cell densities, standard cell count and area, and area utilization are correlated by construction; the factorization is asserted without a statistical test, and the threshold boundary depends on it.
  • domain assumption Each feature is Gaussian after a hand-chosen transform (log, log(x+1), log(x+constant), sqrt).
    Section III: 'It is critical to characterize various feature distributions as Gaussian.' Normality is judged by visual histogram inspection (Figure 1), not by a fit test; the paper provides no per-feature transform or constant values.
  • ad hoc to paper The central limit theorem justifies modeling individual feature histograms as Gaussian.
    Section III invokes the CLT [45] as the basis for the Gaussian assumption, but the CLT governs sums and averages, not raw feature histograms; the invocation is not a valid derivation of normality for pin density or cell count.
  • domain assumption Random grid splits within the nine OpenCores designs represent deployment on a new design.
    Section IV.A splits data 70/15/15 within the same designs; no held-out design is evaluated, so the reported accuracy does not test the pre-global-routing use case of predicting violations on an unseen chip.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PGR-DRC: Pre-Global Routing DRC Violation Prediction Using Unsupervised Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E3YQJLVY

@misc{pith2026250713355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PGR-DRC: Pre-Global Routing DRC Violation Prediction Using Unsupervised Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E3YQJLVY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13355}
}
read the original abstract

Leveraging artificial intelligence (AI)-driven electronic design and automation (EDA) tools, high-performance computing, and parallelized algorithms are essential for next-generation microprocessor innovation, ensuring continued progress in computing, AI, and semiconductor technology. Machine learning-based design rule checking (DRC) and lithography hotspot detection can improve first-pass silicon success. However, conventional ML and neural network (NN)-based models use supervised learning and require a large balanced dataset (in terms of positive and negative classes) and training time. This research addresses those key challenges by proposing the first-ever unsupervised DRC violation prediction methodology. The proposed model can be built using any unbalanced dataset using only one class and set a threshold for it, then fitting any new data querying if they are within the boundary of the model for classification. This research verified the proposed model by implementing different computational cores using CMOS 28 nm technology and Synopsys Design Compiler and IC Compiler II tools. Then, layouts were divided into virtual grids to collect about 60k data for analysis and verification. The proposed method has 99.95% prediction test accuracy, while the existing support vector machine (SVM) and neural network (NN) models have 85.44\% and 98.74\% accuracy, respectively. In addition, the proposed methodology has about 26.3x and up to 6003x lower training times compared to SVM and NN-models, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13355 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of transforming a non-Gaussian distribution into a Gaussian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The proposed methodology collects features before the detailed routing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gaussian distribution of DRCs considering (a) standard cell area, (b) pin density, (c) intersecting nets, and (d) buried nets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: For validation and test data, the proposed method has 99.96% and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Design Rule Violation Prediction at Sub-10-nm Process Nodes Using Customized Convolutional Networks,

    R. Liang, H. Xiang, D. Pandey, L. N. Reddy, S. Ramji, G.-J. Nam, and J. Hu, “Design Rule Violation Prediction at Sub-10-nm Process Nodes Using Customized Convolutional Networks,”IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 3503–3514, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Soft voting-based ensemble approach to predict early stage DRC violations,

    R. Islam and M. A. Shahjalal, “Soft voting-based ensemble approach to predict early stage DRC violations,” in2019 IEEE 62nd International Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems (MWSCAS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1081–1084

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Chip Placement with Deep Reinforcement Learning,

    A. Mirhoseini, A. Goldie, M. Yazgan, J. Jiang, E. Songhori, S. Wang, Y .-J. Lee, E. Johnson, O. Pathak, S. Bae, A. Nazi, J. Pak, A. Tong, K. Srinivasa, W. Hang, E. Tuncer, A. Babu, Q. V . Le, J. Laudon, R. Ho, R. Carpenter, and J. Dean, “Chip Placement with Deep Reinforcement Learning,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.10746

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Feasibility prediction for rapid IC design space exploration,

    R. Islam, “Feasibility prediction for rapid IC design space exploration,” Electronics, vol. 11, no. 7, p. 1161, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11071161

    work page doi:10.3390/electronics11071161 2022

  5. [5]

    A no-human-in-the-loop method- ology toward optimal utilization of EDA tools and flows,

    A. B. Kahng, S. Kumar, and T. Shah, “A no-human-in-the-loop method- ology toward optimal utilization of EDA tools and flows,”DAC work in progress poster, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    An Open- Source ML-Based Full-Stack Optimization Framework for Machine Learning Accelerators,

    H. Esmaeilzadeh, S. Ghodrati, A. Kahng, J. K. Kim, S. Kinzer, S. Kundu, R. Mahapatra, S. D. Manasi, S. Sapatnekar, Z. Wanget al., “An Open- Source ML-Based Full-Stack Optimization Framework for Machine Learning Accelerators,”ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1–33, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    DRC Violation Prediction with Pre-global-routing Features Through Convolutional Neural Network,

    J.-G. Lin, Y .-G. Chen, Y .-W. Yang, W.-T. Hung, C.-H. Tsai, D.-S. Fu, and M. C.-T. Chao, “DRC Violation Prediction with Pre-global-routing Features Through Convolutional Neural Network,” inProceedings of the Great Lakes Symposium on VLSI 2023, 2023, pp. 313–319

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Early Stage DRC Hotspot Prediction for Mixed-Size Designs Through an Efficient Graph-Based Deep Learning,

    J. Lin, S. Liang, W. Lin, P. Gao, Y . Xing, T. Wu, X. Xiong, and S. Cai, “Early Stage DRC Hotspot Prediction for Mixed-Size Designs Through an Efficient Graph-Based Deep Learning,”ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Bi-Level Optimization Accelerated DRC-Aware Physical Design Automation for Photonic Devices,

    H. Chen, Y . Ma, and Y . Tong, “Bi-Level Optimization Accelerated DRC-Aware Physical Design Automation for Photonic Devices,” in2025 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference (DATE). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–7

    2025

  2. [10]

    Learning intru- sion detection: Supervised or unsupervised?

    P. Laskov, P. D ¨ussel, C. Sch ¨afer, and K. Rieck, “Learning intru- sion detection: Supervised or unsupervised?” inImage Analysis and Processing–ICIAP 2005, F. Roli and S. Vitulano, Eds., 2005, pp. 50–57

    2005

  3. [11]

    DRC Violation Prediction After Global Route Through Convolutional Neural Network,

    W.-T. Hung, Y .-G. Chen, J.-G. Lin, Y .-W. Yang, C.-H. Tsai, and M. C.-T. Chao, “DRC Violation Prediction After Global Route Through Convolutional Neural Network,”IEEE Transactions on V ery Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1425–1438, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    BEOL stack-aware routability prediction from placement using data mining techniques,

    W.-T. J. Chan, Y . Du, A. B. Kahng, S. Nath, and K. Samadi, “BEOL stack-aware routability prediction from placement using data mining techniques,” inIEEE 34th International Conference on Computer Design (ICCD), 2016, pp. 41–48

    2016

  5. [13]

    Transforming Global Routing Report into DRC Violation Map with Convolutional Neural Network,

    W.-T. Hung, J.-Y . Huang, Y .-C. Chou, C.-H. Tsai, and M. Chao, “Transforming Global Routing Report into DRC Violation Map with Convolutional Neural Network,” inProceedings of the International Symposium on Physical Design, ser. ISPD ’20. New York, NY , USA: Association for Co...

    2020

  6. [14]

    RouteNet: Routability prediction for Mixed-Size Designs Using Convolutional Neural Network,

    Z. Xie, Y .-H. Huang, G.-Q. Fang, H. Ren, S.-Y . Fang, Y . Chen, and J. Hu, “RouteNet: Routability prediction for Mixed-Size Designs Using Convolutional Neural Network,” inIEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD), 2018, pp. 1–8

    2018

  7. [15]

    Pin accessibility prediction and optimization with deep learning-based pin pattern recognition,

    T.-C. Yu, S.-Y . Fang, H.-S. Chiu, K.-S. Hu, P. H.-Y . Tai, C. C.-F. Shen, and H. Sheng, “Pin accessibility prediction and optimization with deep learning-based pin pattern recognition,” inProceedings of the 56th Annual Design Automation Conference, 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  8. [16]

    Eh-DRVP: Combining placement and global routing data in a hyper-image-based DRV predictor,

    S. F. Almeida, R. Netto, T. A. Fontana, E. Aghaeekiasaraee, U. Gandhi, A. F. Tabrizi, J. L. G ¨untzel, L. Behjat, and C. Meinhardt, “Eh-DRVP: Combining placement and global routing data in a hyper-image-based DRV predictor,”Integration, vol. 101, p. 102309, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Pin Accessibility and Routing Congestion Aware DRC Hotspot Prediction for Designs in Advanced Technology Nodes With Consolidated Practical Applicability and Sustainability,

    H. Park, K. Baek, S. Kim, K. Choi, and T. Kim, “Pin Accessibility and Routing Congestion Aware DRC Hotspot Prediction for Designs in Advanced Technology Nodes With Consolidated Practical Applicability and Sustainability,”IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated...

    2024

  10. [18]

    DRV Predic- tion Using Quantum-Classical Hybrid Convolutional Neural Network,

    X. Zhang, H. Tian, C. Wang, W. Ji, M. Kou, and H. Yao, “DRV Predic- tion Using Quantum-Classical Hybrid Convolutional Neural Network,” in9th International Conference on Integrated Circuits and Microsystems (ICICM), 2024, pp. 333–338

    2024

  11. [19]

    DRC hotspot prediction at sub-10nm process nodes using customized convolutional network,

    R. Liang, H. Xiang, D. Pandey, L. Reddy, S. Ramji, G.-J. Nam, and J. Hu, “DRC hotspot prediction at sub-10nm process nodes using customized convolutional network,” inProceedings of the 2020 Inter- national Symposium on Physical Design, 2020, pp. 135–142

    2020

  12. [20]

    An Efficient Method of DRC Violation Prediction with a Serial Deep Learning Model,

    J. Lin, W. Lin, S. Liang, P. Gao, Y . Xing, T. Wu, X. Xiong, and S. Cai, “An Efficient Method of DRC Violation Prediction with a Serial Deep Learning Model,”ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1–16, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Early Stage DRC Prediction Using Ensemble Machine Learn- ing Algorithms,

    R. Islam, “Early Stage DRC Prediction Using Ensemble Machine Learn- ing Algorithms,”IEEE Canadian Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 354–364, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Machine Learning based Routing Guide Generation and its Application to Design Rule Violation Reduction,

    C.-H. Lu, H.-H. Pan, T.-C. Wang, P.-Y . Chen, and C.-F. C. Shen, “Machine Learning based Routing Guide Generation and its Application to Design Rule Violation Reduction,” inInternational VLSI Symposium on Technology, Systems and Applications (VLSI-TSA/VLSI-DAT), 2023, pp. 1–4

    2023

  15. [23]

    Predicting DRC violations using ensem- ble random forest algorithm,

    R. Islam and M. A. Shahjalal, “Predicting DRC violations using ensem- ble random forest algorithm,” inProceedings of the 56th Annual Design Automation Conference 2019, 2019, pp. 1–2

    2019

  16. [24]

    Deep Image Segmentation for Defect Detection in Photo-lithography Fabrication,

    O. Paul, S. Abrar, R. Mu, R. Islam, and M. D. Samad, “Deep Image Segmentation for Defect Detection in Photo-lithography Fabrication,” in2023 24th International Symposium on Quality Electronic Design (ISQED). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–7

    2023

  17. [25]

    Routability optimization for industrial designs at sub-14nm process nodes using machine learning,

    W.-T. J. Chan, P.-H. Ho, A. B. Kahng, and P. Saxena, “Routability optimization for industrial designs at sub-14nm process nodes using machine learning,” inProceedings of the 2017 ACM on International Symposium on Physical Design, 2017, pp. 15–21

    2017

  18. [26]

    A learning- based methodology for routability prediction in placement,

    L.-C. Chen, C.-C. Huang, Y .-L. Chang, and H.-M. Chen, “A learning- based methodology for routability prediction in placement,” in2018 International Symposium on VLSI Design, Automation and Test (VLSI- DAT). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–4

    2018

  19. [27]

    Detailed routing violation prediction during placement using machine learning,

    A. F. Tabrizi, N. K. Darav, L. Rakai, A. Kennings, and L. Behjat, “Detailed routing violation prediction during placement using machine learning,” in2017 International Symposium on VLSI Design, Automation and Test (VLSI-DAT). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–4

    2017

  20. [28]

    BEOL stack-aware routability prediction from placement using data mining techniques,

    W.-T. J. Chan, Y . Du, A. B. Kahng, S. Nath, and K. Samadi, “BEOL stack-aware routability prediction from placement using data mining techniques,” in2016 IEEE 34th international conference on computer design (ICCD). IEEE, 2016, pp. 41–48

    2016

  21. [29]

    A Machine Learning Framework to Identify De- tailed Routing Short Violations from a Placed Netlist,

    A. F. Tabrizi, L. Rakai, N. K. Darav, I. Bustany, L. Behjat, S. Xu, and A. Kennings, “A Machine Learning Framework to Identify De- tailed Routing Short Violations from a Placed Netlist,” in2018 55th ACM/ESDA/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2018, pp. 1– 6

    2018

  22. [30]

    GRANNITE: Graph neural network inference for transferable power estimation,

    Y . Zhang, H. Ren, and B. Khailany, “GRANNITE: Graph neural network inference for transferable power estimation,” in2020 57th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  23. [31]

    GCN-RL Circuit Designer: Transferable Transistor Sizing with Graph Neural Networks and Reinforcement Learning,

    H. Wang, K. Wang, J. Yang, L. Shen, N. Sun, H.-S. Lee, and S. Han, “GCN-RL Circuit Designer: Transferable Transistor Sizing with Graph Neural Networks and Reinforcement Learning,” in2020 57th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  24. [32]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” inMedical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international con- ference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18. ...

    2015

  25. [33]

    Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1512.03385

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Low-power resonant clocking using soft error robust energy recovery flip-flops,

    R. Islam, “Low-power resonant clocking using soft error robust energy recovery flip-flops,”Journal of Electronic Testing, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 471–485, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Clock aware low power placement,

    J. Ding, L. Lu, Z. Fu, J. Ma, M. Gong, Y . Qi, and W. Yu, “Clock aware low power placement,” inIEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD). IEEE, 2023, pp. 01–08

    2023

  28. [36]

    Resonant Energy Recycling SRAM Architecture,

    R. Islam, B. Saha, and I. Bezzam, “Resonant Energy Recycling SRAM Architecture,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 1383–1387, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Islam,Current-Mode Clocking and Synthesis Considering Low-Power and Skew

    R. Islam,Current-Mode Clocking and Synthesis Considering Low-Power and Skew. University of California, Santa Cruz, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    ArXrCiM: Architec- tural Exploration of Application-Specific Resonant SRAM Compute-in- Memory,

    D. Challagundla, I. Bezzam, and R. Islam, “ArXrCiM: Architec- tural Exploration of Application-Specific Resonant SRAM Compute-in- Memory,”IEEE Transactions on V ery Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Deep learning-based chip power prediction and optimization: An intelligent EDA approach,

    S. Wang, K. Xu, and Z. Ling, “Deep learning-based chip power prediction and optimization: An intelligent EDA approach,”Annals of Applied Sciences, vol. 5, no. 1, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Power and skew reduction using resonant energy recycling in 14-nm FinFET clocks,

    D. Challagundla, M. Galib, I. Bezzam, and R. Islam, “Power and skew reduction using resonant energy recycling in 14-nm FinFET clocks,” in 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 268–272

    2022

  33. [41]

    TOTAL: Multi-Corners Timing Optimization Based on Transfer and Active Learning,

    W. W. Xing, Z. Xing, R. Lu, Z. Wang, N. Xu, Y . Cheng, and W. Zhao, “TOTAL: Multi-Corners Timing Optimization Based on Transfer and Active Learning,” in60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  34. [42]

    DCMCS: Highly robust low-power differential current-mode clocking and synthesis,

    R. Islam, H. A. Fahmy, P. Y . Lin, and M. R. Guthaus, “DCMCS: Highly robust low-power differential current-mode clocking and synthesis,” IEEE Transactions on V ery Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 2108–2117, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Restructure- Tolerant Timing Prediction via Multimodal Fusion,

    Z. Wang, S. Liu, Y . Pu, S. Chen, T.-Y . Ho, and B. Yu, “Restructure- Tolerant Timing Prediction via Multimodal Fusion,” in2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  36. [44]

    Current-mode clock distribution,

    M. Guthaus and R. Islam, “Current-mode clock distribution,” Oct. 10 2017, uS Patent 9,787,293

    2017

  37. [45]

    Casella and R

    G. Casella and R. L. Berger,Statistical Inference. Duxbury, 2002

    2002

  38. [46]

    OpenCores: Open source IP-cores,

    “OpenCores: Open source IP-cores,” http://www.opencores.org

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.