跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.14928 · v1

Provably Optimal HBT Legalization in Seconds: Certified Optima Reveal Where the Headroom Really Lies

首次提交 2026-11-11 10:32
版本更新 2026-11-11 10:32
雷达观测 2026-11-13 10:09
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Hybrid bonding terminal (HBT) legalization assigns every terminal of a face-to-face 3D IC to its own pitch-grid site with minimum total Manhattan displacement. Open3DBench reports that a reinforcement-learning (RL) legalizer reduces displacement by 19-22% relative to a sliding-window (SW) heuristic, but none of its legalizers is publicly released. We ask how much displacement any legalizer can still recover. We build an open benchmark of 21 design/pitch instances from Open3DBench placement data, with reconstructed greedy, SW (ViaLegal-style) and BTAssign-style baselines, and GEO-Exact, an exact solver that runs successive shortest augmenting paths over lazily generated spatial candidate edges. An independent dual certificate proves its assignment optimal on all 21 instances (relative primal-dual gap at most 8.2×10−168.2 \times 10^{-16}). Against these optima, our SW reconstruction with ViaLegal's default configuration is on average 0.011% above optimal (worst 0.119%), while on the 16 contended instances BTAssign-style, a density-guided heuristic (DGHL) and greedy are 3.0%, 6.9% and 64.5% above. Headroom does appear outside this regime: with 2x2 windows SW reaches 34.1%, and above about 58% utilization, on three of six swept designs, it reaches 21.1% on bp, 27.5% on swerv and 8.9% on jpeg (217 further certified instances, and ten bp points checked against an independent exact solver). If the published 19-22% gain were measured on instances like ours, SW would have to be at least 24-28% above optimal on average, far more than any SW variant we tested at nominal pitch; the RL paper's own comparison with the Hungarian optimum puts its SW 3.05% above optimal on average. GEO-Exact is also about an order of magnitude faster than DGHL and SW in our harness (geometric means 8.1x and 40x; a compiled core against Python baselines on a shared server). Code, optimal values and certificates are released.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只收录了一个版本。收录下一版后,可以对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-11 10:32 · 最新观测版本

Provably Optimal HBT Legalization in Seconds: Certified Optima Reveal Where the Headroom Really Lies

Hybrid bonding terminal (HBT) legalization assigns every terminal of a face-to-face 3D IC to its own pitch-grid site with minimum total Manhattan displacement. Open3DBench reports that a reinforcement-learning (RL) legalizer reduces displacement by 19-22% relative to a sliding-window (SW) heuristic, but none of its legalizers is publicly released. We ask how much displacement any legalizer can still recover. We build an open benchmark of 21 design/pitch instances from Open3DBench placement data, with reconstructed greedy, SW (ViaLegal-style) and BTAssign-style baselines, and GEO-Exact, an exact solver that runs successive shortest augmenting paths over lazily generated spatial candidate edges. An independent dual certificate proves its assignment optimal on all 21 instances (relative primal-dual gap at most 8.2×10−168.2 \times 10^{-16}). Against these optima, our SW reconstruction with ViaLegal's default configuration is on average 0.011% above optimal (worst 0.119%), while on the 16 contended instances BTAssign-style, a density-guided heuristic (DGHL) and greedy are 3.0%, 6.9% and 64.5% above. Headroom does appear outside this regime: with 2x2 windows SW reaches 34.1%, and above about 58% utilization, on three of six swept designs, it reaches 21.1% on bp, 27.5% on swerv and 8.9% on jpeg (217 further certified instances, and ten bp points checked against an independent exact solver). If the published 19-22% gain were measured on instances like ours, SW would have to be at least 24-28% above optimal on average, far more than any SW variant we tested at nominal pitch; the RL paper's own comparison with the Hungarian optimum puts its SW 3.05% above optimal on average. GEO-Exact is also about an order of magnitude faster than DGHL and SW in our harness (geometric means 8.1x and 40x; a compiled core against Python baselines on a shared server). Code, optimal values and certificates are released.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗