让物理设计算法自动进化,精准修复关键瓶颈,提升整体芯片质量。
GoalEvolve: From Handcrafted Algorithm Priors to Goal-Driven Evolution of Physical Design Algorithms

- 以最终芯片质量为目标,动态识别影响全局的性能瓶颈。
- 平均提升布线后时序余量30.67%,降低功耗21.18%和9.42%。
- 适合芯片架构师与自动化设计团队快速优化复杂设计流程。
物理设计算法在紧密耦合的多阶段优化流程中运行,局部优化可能无法带来最终收益,甚至引发下游退化。现有程序演化框架通常依赖局部目标或单一反馈,无法保证最终结果改善,也难以定位应优先优化的需求。我们提出 GoalEvolve,一种以最终芯片质量(QoR)为导向的演化框架,确保算法改进对全流程结果负责。给定多目标QoR目标区域,GoalEvolve将未达标项转化为归一化差距,识别主导瓶颈,并通过阶段级检查点证据定位问题阶段。基于LLM的Teacher引导搜索至相关算法决策与代码区域,而并行的Student代理通过全流评估实现并验证假设。保留局部效应、优化债务与下游留存作为演化机制证据。在八组ASAP7设计上,GoalEvolve平均使布线后时序负松弛(TNS)改善30.67%,泄漏与动态功耗分别降低21.18%和9.42%,优于默认OpenROAD。相比商用工具目标,在功耗主导设计上关闭62.20%的归一化功耗差距,时序主导设计超越其时序目标,联合设计中关闭32.48%的等权时序-功耗差距。在与Codex目标模式相同预算下,所有三类设计进一步使TNS改善26.46%,泄漏与动态功耗分别降低12.38%和0.76%。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Physical design algorithms operate within tightly coupled, multi-stage optimization flows, where stage-local gains may vanish or induce downstream degradation. Existing program-evolution frameworks often rely on stage-local objectives or undifferentiated multi-metric feedback, which neither guarantee better final results nor identify which unmet requirement should guide the next iteration. We present GoalEvolve, a goal-driven framework that makes physical design algorithm evolution accountable for the final quality of results (QoR) of the complete flow. Given a multi-objective QoR target region, GoalEvolve converts unmet requirements into normalized target gaps, identifies the dominant bottleneck, and uses stage-resolved checkpoint evidence to locate the responsible stage. An LLM-based Teacher then narrows the search to a relevant algorithmic decision and source region, while parallel Student agents implement and validate hypotheses through full-flow evaluation. Local effects, optimization debt, and downstream retention are retained as mechanism evidence for subsequent evolution. Across eight ASAP7 designs, GoalEvolve improves post-route TNS by 30.67% on average and reduces leakage and dynamic power by 21.18% and 9.42% versus default OpenROAD. Relative to commercial-tool goals, it closes 62.20% of the normalized power gap on power-dominant designs, surpasses the TNS goals on both timing-dominant designs, and closes 32.48% of the equal-weight timing-power gap on joint designs. Across all three designs evaluated against Codex goal mode under matched budgets, GoalEvolve further improves TNS by 26.46% while reducing leakage and dynamic power by 12.38% and 0.76%, respectively.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。