CoEvoP&R addresses limitations with a large language model (LLM)-based framework that automatically evolves analytical placement objectives and reduces post-route routed wirelength and congestion across eight ChiP-Bench Nangate45 designs and three seeds.
Abstract
Analytical placers rely on differentiable objective functions to guide placement, typically combining intermediate surrogate metrics such as half-perimeter wirelength (HPWL) and cell-density penalties. However, these placement-stage surrogates remain misaligned with downstream routed and timing quality. Prior work reduces this gap with human-designed terms or learned black-box surrogates, but the former requires expert retuning and the latter is difficult to explain, debug, or deploy in analytical placement flows. CoEvoP&R addresses these limitations with a large language model (LLM)-based framework that automatically evolves analytical placement objectives. At each generation, the prompt combines the restricted objective interface, baseline context, and archived prior candidates with routing-related feedback from placement, timing proxy, and routing tools. The LLM proposes readable differentiable objectives, which are embedded and validated in DREAMPlace, evaluated through a timing proxy and an actual router, and stored with their feedback to guide later generations. Across eight ChiP-Bench Nangate45 designs and three seeds, CoEvoP&R reduces post-route routed wirelength and congestion by 16.9% and 36.7%, with gains of 0.70 ns in worst negative slack and a 912 ns reduction in total negative slack magnitude over native DREAMPlace. Across eight ICCAD 2015 Superblue designs, it reduces post-route routed wirelength and congestion by 5.4% and 23.2%. Code is available at https://github.com/FCHXWH823/CoEvoP-R.git.
Automated macro placement remains a fundamental challenge in VLSI physical design. Despite decades of research, existing approaches predominantly optimize hand-crafted proxy objectives, such as estimated wirelength, and typically produce placements through one-shot numerical optimization, limiting their ability to inco...
Qiufeng Li, Cheng-Xuan Wang, Rong-Qian Chen et al.· 0 citations
Macro placement significantly affects a chip's post-route performance, power, and area (PPA). Most placement methods optimize half-perimeter wirelength (HPWL) as the primary objective. However, recent benchmarking shows a near-zero correlation between HPWL and post-route timing metrics such as the worst negative slack...
This study addresses the long-standing challenge of a core task in chip physical design, termed macro placement. The problem is characterized by an enormous combinatorial search space and a highly multimodal cost landscape. While recent learning-based approaches have shown promise, reinforcement-learning rollouts often...
Pretrained macro-placement policies can reduce repeated optimization across circuits, but deployment often exposes them to unfamiliar designs when the original training data are unavailable. Repeatedly fine-tuning a single serving model can overwrite earlier improvements, while simply saving checkpoints does not determ...
Jie-Fu Zhang, Hai-Xiang Sun, Yang Xu et al.· 0 citations
Performance modeling is central to hardware design and software optimization, yet constructing these models requires structured reasoning about computation, data reuse, storage, and movement. We introduce PerfReasoning, a benchmark that evaluates LLMs both as direct performance reasoners and as generators of analytical...
Da Zhao, K. Sankaralingam, Christos Kozyrakis et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.