Showing papers on "FLOPS published in 2004"

An Efficient Flip-Flops Matching Engine

Abstract: Generic algorithms for sequential equivalence checking are computationally expensive because they are based on state space traversal. This is the main reason why commercial tools often use combinational equivalence checking techniques to verify sequential designs. This approach consists in identifying potential equivalent flipflops or nets in the two designs under verification. This is called the matching step. Due to sequential optimizations performed during synthesis, which can remove, merge, replicate or retime flip-flops, this matching step can be very complex and incomplete. Moreover if the matching is incomplete, even if a fast and efficient SAT solver is used during the combinational equivalence-checking step, this kind of approach may fail. In this paper, we present a complete matching engine, which is able to handle optimized circuit and don’t care conditions. The efficiency of the proposed engine is confirmed by experimental results on retimed and optimized circuits.

Subsonic Aircraft With Regression and Neural-Network Approximators Designed

Abstract: At the NASA Glenn Research Center, NASA Langley Research Center's Flight Optimization System (FLOPS) and the design optimization testbed COMETBOARDS with regression and neural-network-analysis approximators have been coupled to obtain a preliminary aircraft design methodology. For a subsonic aircraft, the optimal design, that is the airframe-engine combination, is obtained by the simulation. The aircraft is powered by two high-bypass-ratio engines with a nominal thrust of about 35,000 lbf. It is to carry 150 passengers at a cruise speed of Mach 0.8 over a range of 3000 n mi and to operate on a 6000-ft runway. The aircraft design utilized a neural network and a regression-approximations-based analysis tool, along with a multioptimizer cascade algorithm that uses sequential linear programming, sequential quadratic programming, the method of feasible directions, and then sequential quadratic programming again. Optimal aircraft weight versus the number of design iterations is shown. The central processing unit (CPU) time to solution is given. It is shown that the regression-method-based analyzer exhibited a smoother convergence pattern than the FLOPS code. The optimum weight obtained by the approximation technique and the FLOPS code differed by 1.3 percent. Prediction by the approximation technique exhibited no error for the aircraft wing area and turbine entry temperature, whereas it was within 2 percent for most other parameters. Cascade strategy was required by FLOPS as well as the approximators. The regression method had a tendency to hug the data points, whereas the neural network exhibited a propensity to follow a mean path. The performance of the neural network and regression methods was considered adequate. It was at about the same level for small, standard, and large models with redundancy ratios (defined as the number of input-output pairs to the number of unknown coefficients) of 14, 28, and 57, respectively. In an SGI octane workstation (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountainview, CA), the regression training required a fraction of a CPU second, whereas neural network training was between 1 and 9 min, as given. For a single analysis cycle, the 3-sec CPU time required by the FLOPS code was reduced to milliseconds by the approximators. For design calculations, the time with the FLOPS code was 34 min. It was reduced to 2 sec with the regression method and to 4 min by the neural network technique. The performance of the regression and neural network methods was found to be satisfactory for the analysis and design optimization of the subsonic aircraft.