HackerPapers

arXiv:2302.11014cs.LG

An Updated Assessment of Reinforcement Learning for Macro Placement

Chung-Kuan Cheng, Andrew B. Kahng, Sayak Kundu, Yucheng Wang, Zhiang Wang

Abstract

We provide an improved assessment of Google Brain's deep reinforcement learning approach to macro placement and its updated Circuit Training (CT) implementation in GitHub. A stronger simulated annealing (SA) baseline leverages the "go-with-the-winners" metaheuristic and a multi-threading implementation. We develop and release new public benchmarks in sub-10nm technology: LEF/DEF for Google's 7nm TSMC Ariane protobuf and scaled variants, as well as testcases implemented in the open-source ASAP7 7nm research enablement. We evaluate from-scratch training and fine-tuning results for the latest "AlphaChip" release of Circuit Training, alongside multiple alternative macro placers. We also study the recently-published pre-training guidance in. A commercial place-and-route tool is used to provide "true reward" post-route power, performance and area metrics. All data, evaluation flows and related scripts are publicly available in the MacroPlacement GitHub repository. Our study affords insights into reproducibility and reporting in the research literature, and points out still-missing confirmations (e.g., of CT's scalability and pre-training methodology) that remain open questions for the research community.

arXiv comments
There are total sixteen pages and two pages for the appendix. It includes six figures and eleven tables. This paper has been accepted and published in IEEE Transactions on CAD
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.LGMachine Learning cs.AIArtificial Intelligence

On Hacker News

Linked by 2 identifiable commenters in 2 comments across 2 threads, from Jun 2023 to Dec 2024.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments2 threads

    • > One key argument in the rebuttal against the ISPD article is that the resources used in their comparison were significantly smaller. To me, this point alone seems sufficient to question the validity of the ISPD work's conclusions. What are your thoughts on this? I believe this…

      vighneshiyerView on HNParent context

    • One is basically an evidence-free ad hominem attack. > [2] https://twitter.com/JacobSteinhardt/status/15215993404137881... The other two sources make a concrete claim that in mid-2002 there was an independent, open-source, replication of the Nature paper: > [1]…

      oldgradstudentView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.