Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 100 references

Tools and Methodologies for System-Level Design

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This survey argues that system-level design for systems-on-chips is less amenable to synthesis than logic or physical design, so the field's tools concentrate on modeling, simulation, design-space exploration, and verification.

desk verdict A competent, well-organized survey chapter whose main blemish is a localized video-coding terminology slip; useful for newcomers, no new science, but it deserves a careful referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09660 v1 pith:IIUSDYT5 submitted 2025-07-13 cs.AR

Shuvra S. Bhattacharyya , Marilyn Wolf This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AR
keywords system-leveldesignsystems-on-chipsmodelsofcomputationdataflowhardware/softwareco-designsimulationspaceexplorationFPGAs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper, a survey chapter, organizes the field of system-level design for systems-on-chips around a single working assumption: the design space is too heterogeneous to be synthesized the way logic or physical design can be. Because of that, the authors argue, system-level tools earn their keep through modeling, simulation, design-space exploration, and verification rather than through automatic synthesis. The chapter maps these tools and the models of computation that support them, using video processing and neural networks as running examples of heterogeneous applications. Its message to a reader is that understanding models of computation — dataflow in particular — is the key to managing the transition from algorithm to architecture at the system level.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the model of computation, with synchronous dataflow (SDF) at the center: SDF fixes the number of tokens each actor produces and consumes per firing, which makes schedules, bounded-memory behavior, and deadlock properties statically analyzable. Around it the paper assembles a family of related models — multidimensional, windowed, blocked, Boolean, and scenario-aware dataflow — to handle video's sampling lattices, sliding windows, and control flow. It uses hierarchical heterogeneity, the principle that each subsystem is described in one model of computation while nested subsystems may use different ones and are integrated by hierarchical embedding, to combine models inside one system. These models provide the semantics that make modeling truthful, simulation meaningful, and design-space exploration tractable for heterogeneous SoCs.

What would settle it

Check the survey's factual claims against primary sources: for example, look up the frame-type definitions in the MPEG specification, where I-frames are intra-coded and not motion-compensated, contradicting Section 2's 'inter' label. More broadly, recompute the reported 78% average path ratio for the MediaBench suite from the original traces; if the measurement does not reproduce, the survey's empirical grounding is also in question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that system-level design is a different kind of engineering from logic or physical design: it is less amenable to synthesis, so its tools must concentrate on correctly capturing operational semantics, exploring design trade-offs, and verifying behavior and performance. The argument is carried by models of computation, especially dataflow and its variants, which give formal rules for how functional components operate and interact. The paper surveys a spectrum of tools and languages that embody these models, showing how simulation supplies functional, performance, and power information and how hardware/software co-synthesis explores the design space. It closes with the emerging use of machine learning, including large language models, to help generate hardware descriptions within this larger modeling-oriented flow.

Load-bearing premise

The usefulness of this survey depends on the accuracy of its characterizations of established models and tools — a premise that Section 2 visibly strains by calling MPEG I-frames 'inter' frames, since I-frames are intra-coded and not motion-compensated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • System-level tool research will keep returning to modeling, simulation, design-space exploration, and verification rather than aiming at full system synthesis.
  • Dataflow-style models and their control-aware extensions will remain central because they make heterogeneous video and machine-learning systems statically analyzable.
  • Simulation will stay the main source of performance and power/energy estimates for SoC designs, since the input patterns are too complex for closed-form analysis.
  • Hardware/software partitioning and co-synthesis should be read as design-space exploration methods, not as synthesis in the logic-synthesis sense.
  • Machine-learning-based HDL generation is useful mainly inside a larger model-based flow, because non-functional constraints such as clock speed and power still require estimation and verification beyond the generated code.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if the survey's framing is right, the near-term payoff for machine learning in chip design will be in block-level HDL generation and estimation, not in whole-system design, since system-level work is precisely the part that resists synthesis.
  • Editorial inference: the heavy weight the paper gives to dataflow suggests a testable benchmark hypothesis — designs specified in SDF-like models should be substantially easier to schedule, verify for bounded memory, and map to parallel platforms than equivalent designs written in general-purpose languages.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's own example data imply that video and neural-network workloads are control-rich as well as data-rich, so future tools may need tighter integration of dynamic dataflow with finite-state-machine control than the survey's static models provide.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a survey chapter on system-level design tools and methodologies. Its central thesis is that system-level design is less amenable to synthesis than logic or physical design, so system-level tools concentrate on modeling, simulation, design space exploration, and verification. The chapter motivates this thesis using video and neural-network applications as running examples, then reviews target platform architectures (GPUs, platform FPGAs, custom SoCs, TPUs), models of computation (dataflow, SDF, MD-SDF, Boolean dataflow, SADF, etc.), design methodologies (Y-Chart, X-Chart), model-based design languages and tools (CAL, Compaan, PREESM, Ptolemy, SysteMoc, fpgaConvNet, HOPES), simulation techniques (SystemC, cache simulators, cycle-accurate simulators, power simulators), hardware/software co-synthesis, and recent machine-learning approaches to system-level design.

Significance. The survey is well structured and broad in coverage, and the authors make an explicit effort to tie the material together with two contemporary application domains. Most of the technical descriptions align with the cited literature, particularly the models-of-computation sections, and the paper provides a useful service in collecting and organizing established tools and methodologies. Because this is a reference-style survey rather than a research contribution, its value depends on the accuracy and reliability of its characterizations. The confirmed mislabeling of MPEG I-frames as 'inter' frames in Section 2 is a genuine factual error in a foundational area that the chapter itself uses as a running example; although this error is localized and does not overturn the survey's central thesis, it weakens the chapter's credibility as a reference and should be corrected before publication.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 2] The frame-type definitions state: 'I (inter) frames are not motion compensated.' This is backwards: I-frames are intra-coded (hence the 'I') and are not motion compensated, while inter frames are precisely the motion-compensated predicted frames (P and B frames). The parenthetical '(inter)' should read '(intra)'. Because the chapter uses video processing as a running example throughout, with MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 dataflow models appearing in Sections 5 and 6, this foundational misstatement must be corrected, and the surrounding discussion of motion compensation should be checked for consistency with the corrected terminology.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2] The sentence 'Two-dimensional correlation is used to determine the position of the macroblock's position in the new frame' contains a redundant 'position ... position' construction; consider rewording to 'determine the macroblock's position in the new frame'.
  2. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'A hierarchy of register files, caches, and shared memory provide very high memory bandwidth' has a subject-verb agreement issue; 'provide' should be 'provides' (or the sentence should be restructured).
  3. [Section 6.6] In the description of the fpgaConvNet building blocks, 'Erespectively' is missing a space; it should read 'E, respectively'.
  4. [Figure 7 caption] The caption 'An an example of an SDF subgraph corresponding to a CNN layer in fpgaConvNet' contains a duplicated 'an'; remove one 'an'.
  5. [Section 6.7] The phrase 'a particularly interesting feature in HOPES is it capability for robust scheduling' should use 'its' instead of 'it'.
  6. [Section 9] The final sentence of the VHDL-Xform paragraph is garbled: 'A problem statement for code generation, VHDL code, and problem statement are given to an LLM to generate HDL.' This should be rewritten to clearly describe the inputs to the LLM (e.g., the problem statement and any prior VHDL code).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity detected: this is a survey chapter that summarizes external published results rather than deriving new claims from its own definitions.

full rationale

The paper is a review/survey of system-level design tools and methodologies, not a derivation. Its central statement — that system-level design is less amenable to synthesis than logic or physical design and therefore emphasizes modeling, simulation, design-space exploration, and verification — is a general characterization supported by the surveyed literature, not a result derived from any internal definition or fitted parameter. The authors cite their own prior work in several places (e.g., [23], [26], [35], [49], [58]), but these citations point to externally published tools and models (Ptolemy, OpenDF, CAL, dataflow process networks, etc.) that are independently established in the research community; the survey does not invoke those works to force a conclusion or to define away an alternative. There are no equations whose inputs are defined in terms of their outputs, no fitted parameters that are then called predictions, and no uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' other papers to justify an otherwise unsupported choice. The only notable defect is a factual mislabeling in Section 2, where MPEG I-frames are described as "inter" frames; this is an accuracy error, not a circularity, because it does not make any claimed conclusion equivalent to its own premise. The survey is self-contained as an overview and its tool descriptions are consistent with the cited external sources, so no circular reasoning is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a review chapter, so there are no free parameters or invented entities. It relies on standard background in computer architecture and models of computation, all of which are cited. No additional axioms are introduced.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tools and Methodologies for System-Level Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IIUSDYT5

@misc{pith2026250709660,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tools and Methodologies for System-Level Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IIUSDYT5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09660}
}
read the original abstract

System-level design, once the province of board designers, has now become a central concern for chip designers. Because chip design is a less forgiving design medium -- design cycles are longer and mistakes are harder to correct -- system-on-chip designers need a more extensive tool suite than may be used by board designers and a variety of tools and methodologies have been developed for system-level design of systems-on-chips (SoCs). System-level design is less amenable to synthesis than are logic or physical design. As a result, system-level tools concentrate on modeling, simulation, design space exploration, and design verification. The goal of modeling is to correctly capture the system's operational semantics, which helps with both implementation and verification. The study of models of computation provides a framework for the description of digital systems. Not only do we need to understand a particular style of computation, such as dataflow, but we also need to understand how different models of computation can reliably communicate with each other. Design space exploration tools, such as hardware/software co-design, develop candidate designs to understand trade-offs. Simulation can be used not only to verify functional correctness but also to supply performance and power/energy information for design analysis. This chapter employs two applications -- video and neural networks -- as examples. Both are leading-edge applications that illustrate many important aspects of system-level design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09660 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Organization of the Fermi GPU. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Y-chart model for design methodologies [12]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The X-Chart model for design methodologies [13]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A video processing system modeled in dataflow. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An MPEG-2 video encoder specification. 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A block diagram, adapted from [50], of an MPEG-4 decoder that is specified in terms of scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An an example of an SDF subgraph corresponding to a CNN layer in fpgaConvNet. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A task graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A template for hardware/software partitioning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fritts and W

    J. Fritts and W. Wolf. Evaluation of static and dynamic scheduling for media processors. InProceedings of the MICRO-33 MP-DSP2 Workshop , Monterey, California, 2000

    2000

  2. [2]

    Talla, L

    D. Talla, L. K. John, V. Lapinskii, and B. L. Evans. Evaluating signal processing and multimedia appli- cations on SIMD, VLIW and superscalar architectures. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Design , pages 163–172, Austin, Texas, 2000

    2000

  3. [3]

    Ranganathan et al

    P. Ranganathan et al. Warehouse-scale video acceleration: co-design and deployment in the wild. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems , pages 600–615, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    The Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 , 2014

    Qualcomm, Inc. The Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 , 2014. http://www.qualcomm.com/snapdragon/ processors/800, accessed 21 April 2014. 15

    2014

  5. [5]

    MPC5676R Microcontroller Data Sheet, September 2012

    Freescale Semiconductor. MPC5676R Microcontroller Data Sheet, September 2012. document number MPC5676R, rev. 3

    2012

  6. [6]

    Whitepaper: NVIDIA’s Next Generation CUDA Compute Architecture: Fermi , 2009

    NVIDIA Corporation. Whitepaper: NVIDIA’s Next Generation CUDA Compute Architecture: Fermi , 2009

    2009

  7. [7]

    W. Wolf. FPGA-Based System Design . Prentice Hall, 2004

    2004

  8. [8]

    Zynq-7000 All Programmable SoC Technical Reference Manual , September 2014

    Xilinx, Inc. Zynq-7000 All Programmable SoC Technical Reference Manual , September 2014

    2014

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    Arria 10 Device Overview , 2014

    Altera, Inc. Arria 10 Device Overview , 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    PSoC 5LP Architecture Technical Reference Manual , 2013

    Cypress Semiconductor. PSoC 5LP Architecture Technical Reference Manual , 2013. Document no. 001-78426

    2013

  3. [11]

    N. P. Jouppi et al. In-datacenter performance analysis of a tensor processing unit. In International Symposium on Computer Architecture, pages 1–12, Toronto, Canada, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    D. D. Gajski and R. H. Kuhn. Guest editors’ introduction: New VLSI tools. Computer, 16(12):11–14, 1983

    1983

  5. [13]

    Gerstlauer, C

    A. Gerstlauer, C. Haubelt, A. D. Pimentel, T. P. Stefanov, D. D. Gajski, and J. Teich. Electronic system-level synthesis methodologies. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems , 28(10):1517–1530, 2009

    2009

  6. [14]

    E. A. Lee and A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. A framework for comparing models of computation. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems , 17(12):1217–1229, De- cember 1998

    1998

  7. [15]

    A. Basu, M. Hayden, G. Morrisett, and T. von Eicken. A language-based approach to protocol con- struction. In ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Domain-Specific Languages , Paris, France, 1997

    1997

  8. [16]

    Konstantinides and J

    K. Konstantinides and J. R. Rasure. The Khoros software-development environment for image- processing and signal-processing. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 3(3):243–252, May 1994

    1994

  9. [17]

    Lauwereins, M

    R. Lauwereins, M. Engels, M. Ade, and J. A. Peperstraete. Grape-II: A system-level prototyping environment for DSP applications. Computer, 28(2):35–43, February 1995

    1995

  10. [18]

    E. A. Lee, W. H. Ho, E. Goei, J. Bier, and S. S. Bhattacharyya. Gabriel: A design environment for DSP. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing , 37(11):1751–1762, November 1989

    1989

  11. [19]

    C. L. Conway and S. A. Edwards. NDL: A domain-specific language for device drivers. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Languages Compilers and Tools for Embedded Systems , Washington, D.C., 2004

    2004

  12. [20]

    Manikonda, P.S

    V. Manikonda, P.S. Krishnaprasad, and J. Hendler. Languages, behaviors, hybrid architectures and motion control. Technical Report 98-3, University of Maryland Institute for Systems Research, 1998

    1998

  13. [21]

    Proudfoot, W

    K. Proudfoot, W. R. Mark, S. Tzvetkov, and P. Hanrahan. A real-time procedural shading system for programmable graphics hardware. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH, 2001

    2001

  14. [22]

    S. A. Thibault, R. Marlet, and C. Consel. Domain-specific languages: From design to implementation application to video device drivers generation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(3):363– 377, May/June 1999

    1999

  15. [23]

    S. S. Bhattacharyya, E. Deprettere, R. Leupers, and J. Takala, editors. Handbook of Signal Processing Systems. Springer, third edition, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Eker and J

    J. Eker and J. W. Janneck. Dataflow programming in CAL — balancing expressiveness, analyzability, and implementability. In Proceedings of the IEEE Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, pages 1120–1124, Pacific Grove, California, 2012. 16

    2012

  17. [25]

    Pelcat, S

    M. Pelcat, S. Aridhi, J. Piat, and J.-F. Nezan. Physical Layer Multi-Core Prototyping. Springer, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    S. S. Bhattacharyya, G. Brebner, J. Eker, J. W. Janneck, M. Mattavelli, C. von Platen, and M. Raulet. OpenDF — a dataflow toolset for reconfigurable hardware and multicore systems. In Proceedings of the Swedish Workshop on Multi-Core Computing , pages 43–49, Ronneby, Sweden, 2008

    2008

  19. [27]

    S. A. Edwards. Languages for Digital Embedded Systems . Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000

    2000

  20. [28]

    A. Jantsch. Modeling Embedded Systems and SoC’s: Concurrency and Time in Models of Computation . Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 2003

    2003

  21. [29]

    R. M. Karp and R. E. Miller. Properties of a model for parallel computations: Determinacy, termina- tion, queuing. SIAM Journal of Applied Math , 14(6), November 1966

    1966

  22. [30]

    G. Kahn. The semantics of a simple language for parallel programming. In Proceedings of the IFIP Congress, Stockholm, Sweden, 1974

    1974

  23. [31]

    E. A. Lee and T. M. Parks. Dataflow process networks. Proceedings of the IEEE, 83(5):773–799, 1995

    1995

  24. [32]

    A. L. Ambler, M. M. Burnett, and B. A. Zimmerman. Operational versus definitional: A perspective on programming paradigms. Computer, 25(9):28–43, September 1992

    1992

  25. [33]

    Ha and E

    S. Ha and E. A. Lee. Compile-time scheduling and assignment of data-flow program graphs with data-dependent iteration. IEEE Transactions on Computers , 40(11):1225–1238, November 1991

    1991

  26. [34]

    Eker et al

    J. Eker et al. Taming heterogeneity — the Ptolemy approach. Proceedings of the IEEE, 91(1):127–144, 2003

    2003

  27. [35]

    Ko and S

    D. Ko and S. S. Bhattacharyya. Modeling of block-based DSP systems. Journal of VLSI Signal Processing Systems for Signal, Image, and Video Technology , 40(3):289–299, July 2005

    2005

  28. [36]

    E. A. Lee and D. G. Messerschmitt. Synchronous dataflow. Proceedings of the IEEE, 75(9):1235–1245, September 1987

    1987

  29. [37]

    Lublinerman and S

    R. Lublinerman and S. Tripakis. Translating data flow to synchronous block diagrams. In Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Embedded Systems for Real-Time Multimedia , Atlanta, Georgia, 2008

    2008

  30. [38]

    P. K. Murthy and E. A. Lee. Multidimensional synchronous dataflow. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 50(8):2064–2079, August 2002

    2002

  31. [39]

    P. P. Vaidyanathan. Multirate Systems and Filter Banks . Prentice Hall, 1993

    1993

  32. [40]

    Stichling and B

    D. Stichling and B. Kleinjohann. CV-SDF — a synchronous data flow model for real-time computer vision applications. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Systems, Signals and Image Processing, Manchester, United Kingdom, 2002

    2002

  33. [41]

    Keinert, C

    J. Keinert, C. Haubelt, and J. Teich. Modeling and analysis of windowed synchronous algorithms. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing , Toulouse, France, 2006

    2006

  34. [42]

    J. T. Buck and E. A. Lee. Scheduling dynamic dataflow graphs with bounded memory using the token flow model. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Minneapolis, Minnesota, April 1993

    1993

  35. [43]

    J. T. Buck. Static scheduling and code generation from dynamic dataflow graphs with integer-valued control streams. In Proceedings of the IEEE Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, pages 508–513, Pacific Grove, California, October 1994

    1994

  36. [44]

    Buck and R

    J. Buck and R. Vaidyanathan. Heterogeneous modeling and simulation of embedded systems in El Greco. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Hardware/Software Codesign , San Diego, California, 2000. 17

    2000

  37. [45]

    Girault, B

    A. Girault, B. Lee, and E. A. Lee. Hierarchical finite state machines with multiple concurrency models. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 18(6):742–760, June 1999

    1999

  38. [46]

    Thiele, K

    L. Thiele, K. Strehl, D. Ziegenbein, R. Ernst, and J. Teich. FunState — an internal representation for codesign. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Aided Design , San Jose, California, 1999

    1999

  39. [47]

    Cossement, R

    N. Cossement, R. Lauwereins, and F. Catthoor. DF*: An extension of synchronous dataflow with data dependency and non-determinism. In Proceedings of the Forum on Specification and Design Languages, Tuebingen, Germany, 2000

    2000

  40. [48]

    Pankert, O

    M. Pankert, O. Mauss, S. Ritz, and H. Meyr. Dynamic data flow and control flow in high level DSP code synthesis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Adelaide, Australia, 1994

    1994

  41. [49]

    Plishker, N

    W. Plishker, N. Sane, M. Kiemb, K. Anand, and S. S. Bhattacharyya. Functional DIF for rapid prototyping. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rapid System Prototyping , pages 17– 23, Monterey, California, 2008

    2008

  42. [50]

    B. D. Theelen, M. C. W. Geilen, T. Basten, J. P. M. Voeten, S. V. Gheorghita, and S. Stuijk. A scenario-aware data flow model for combined long-run average and worst-case performance analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Code...

    2006

  43. [51]

    J. W. Janneck, M. Mattavelli, M. Raulet, and M. Wipliez. Reconfigurable video coding: a stream programming approach to the specification of new video coding standards. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMM conference on Multimedia systems , pages 223–234, Florence, Italy, 2010

    2010

  44. [52]

    Eker and J

    J. Eker and J. W. Janneck. CAL language report, language version 1.0 — document edition 1. Technical Report UCB/ERL M03/48, Electronics Research Laboratory, University of California at Berkeley, December 2003

    2003

  45. [53]

    Yviquel et al

    H. Yviquel et al. Orcc: multimedia development made easy. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 863–866, Barcelona, Spain, 2013

    2013

  46. [54]

    Boutellier, V

    J. Boutellier, V. Sadhanala, C. Lucarz, P. Brisk, and M. Mattavelli. Scheduling of dataflow models within the reconfigurable video coding framework. In Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Signal Processing Systems, Washington, D.C., 2008

    2008

  47. [55]

    Gu et al

    R. Gu et al. Exploiting statically schedulable regions in dataflow programs.Journal of Signal Processing Systems, 63(1):129–142, 2011

    2011

  48. [56]

    Stefanov, C

    T. Stefanov, C. Zissulescu, A. Turjan, B. Kienhuis, and E. Deprettere. System design using Kahn process networks: the Compaan/Laura approach. In Proceedings of the Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition , Paris, France, 2004

    2004

  49. [57]

    Bilsen, M

    G. Bilsen, M. Engels, R. Lauwereins, and J. A. Peperstraete. Cyclo-static dataflow. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 44(2):397–408, February 1996

    1996

  50. [58]

    E. F. Deprettere, T. Stefanov, S. S. Bhattacharyya, and M. Sen. Affine nested loop programs and their binary cyclo-static dataflow counterparts. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Appli- cation Specific Systems, Architectures, and Processors , pages 186–190, Ste...

    2006

  51. [59]

    Kienhuis, E

    B. Kienhuis, E. Rijpkema, and E. Deprettere. Compaan: deriving process networks from Matlab for embedded signal processing architectures. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Hard- ware/Software Codesign, San Diego, California, 2000. 18

    2000

  52. [60]

    Turjan, B

    A. Turjan, B. Kienhuis, and E. Deprettere. An integer linear programming approach to classify the communication in process networks. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software and Compilers for Embedded Systems , pages 62–76, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, September 2004

    2004

  53. [61]

    Nikolov, M

    H. Nikolov, M. Thompson, T. Stefanov, A. Pimentel, S. Polstra, R. Bose, C. Zissulescu, and E. De- prettere. Daedalus: toward composable multimedia MP-SoC design. In Proceedings of the Design Automation Conference, pages 574–579, Anaheim, California, 2008

    2008

  54. [62]

    Pelcat, J

    M. Pelcat, J. Piat, M. Wipliez, S. Aridhi, and J.-F. Nezan. An open framework for rapid prototyping of signal processing applications. EURASIP Journal on Embedded Systems , 2009, January 2009. Article No. 11

    2009

  55. [63]

    S. Holzner. Eclipse. O’Reilly & Associates, Inc., 2004

    2004

  56. [64]

    Pelcat et al

    M. Pelcat et al. Dataflow-based rapid prototyping for multicore DSP systems. Technical Report PREESM/2014-05TR01, Institut National des Sciences Appliqu´ ees de Rennes, 2014

    2014

  57. [65]

    J. T. Buck, S. Ha, E. A. Lee, and D. G. Messerschmitt. Ptolemy: A framework for simulating and prototyping heterogeneous systems. International Journal of Computer Simulation , 4:155–182, April 1994

    1994

  58. [66]

    Kalavade and E

    A. Kalavade and E. A. Lee. A hardware/software codesign methodology for DSP applications. IEEE Design & Test of Computers , 10(3):16–28, September 1993

    1993

  59. [67]

    Neuendorffer and E

    S. Neuendorffer and E. Lee. Hierarchical reconfiguration of dataflow models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Codesign , San Diego, California, 2004

    2004

  60. [68]

    G. Zhou, M. Leung, and E. A. Lee. A code generation framework for actor-oriented models with partial evaluation. Technical Report UCB/EECS-2007-29, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California at Berkeley, February 2007

    2007

  61. [69]

    de Alfaro and T

    L. de Alfaro and T. Henzinger. Interface automata. In Proceedings of the Joint European Software Engineering Conference and ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, Vienna Austria, 2001

    2001

  62. [70]

    E. A. Lee and Y. Xiong. System-level types for component-based design. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Embedded Software , pages 148–165, Tahoe City, California, October 2001

    2001

  63. [71]

    Haubelt, J

    C. Haubelt, J. Falk, J. Keinert, T. Schlichter, M. Streub¨ uhr, A. Deyhle, A. Hadert, and J. Teich. A SystemC-based design methodology for digital signal processing systems. EURASIP Journal on Embedded Systems, 2007:Article ID 47580, 22 pages, 2007

    2007

  64. [72]

    S. I. Venieris and C.-S. Bouganis. fpgaConvNet: Mapping regular and irregular convolutional neural networks on FPGAs. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 30(2):326–342, 2019

    2019

  65. [73]

    Ha and H

    S. Ha and H. Jung. HOPES: Programming platform approach for embedded systems design. In S. Ha and J. Teich, editors, Handbook of hardware/software codesign. Springer Dordrecht, 2017

    2017

  66. [74]

    H. Jung, C. Lee, S.-H. Kang, S. Kim, H. Oh, and S. Ha. Dynamic behavior specification and dy- namic mapping for real-time embedded systems: HOPES approach. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems , 13(4s):1–26, 2014

    2014

  67. [75]

    S. Kwon, Y. Kim, W.-C. Jeun, S. Ha, and Y. Paek. A retargetable parallel-programming framework for MPSoC. ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems , 13(3), July 2008

    2008

  68. [76]

    Stuijk, M

    S. Stuijk, M. Geilen, B. Theelen, and Twan Basten. Scenario-aware dataflow: Modeling, analysis and implementation of dynamic applications. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Embedded Computer Systems: Architectures, Modeling, and Simulation , pages 404–411, Samo...

    2011

  69. [77]

    Marwedel, J

    P. Marwedel, J. Teich, G. Kouveli, J. Bacivarov, L. Thiele, S. Ha, C. Lee, Q. Xu, and L. Huang. Map- ping of applications to MPSoCs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Hardware/Software Codesign and System Synthesis , pages 109–118, Taipei, Taiwan, 2011

    2011

  70. [78]

    D. C. Black, J. Donovan, B. Bunton, and A. Keist. SystemC: From the Ground Up . Springer, second edition, 2010

    2010

  71. [79]

    Edler and M

    J. Edler and M. D. Hill. Dinero IV trace-driven uniprocessor cache simulator. University of Wisconsin, https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~markhill/DineroIV/, Visited on June 1, 2025

    2025

  72. [80]

    D. C. Burger and T. M. Austin. The simplescalar tool set, version 2.0. Technical Report 1342, Department of Computer Sciences, University of Wisconsin at Madison, June 1997

    1997

  73. [81]

    Brooks, V

    D. Brooks, V. Tiwari, and M. Martonosi. Wattch: a framework for architectural-level power analysis and optimizations. In International Symposium on Computer Architecture , pages 83–94, Vancouver, Canada, 2000

    2000

  74. [82]

    Vijaykrishnan, M

    N. Vijaykrishnan, M. Kandemir, M. J. Irwin, H. S. Kim, and W. Ye. Energy-driven integrated hardware-software optimizations using SimplePower. In International Symposium on Computer Archi- tecture, pages 95–106, Vancouver, Canada, 2000

    2000

  75. [83]

    R. K. Gupta and G. De Micheli. Hardware-software cosynthesis for digital systems. IEEE Design & Test of Computers , 10(3):29–41, 1993

    1993

  76. [84]

    Ernst, J

    R. Ernst, J. Henkel, and T. Benner. Hardware-software cosynthesis for microcontrollers. IEEE Design & Test of Computers , 10(4):64–75, December 1993

    1993

  77. [85]

    W. H. Wolf. An architectural co-synthesis algorithm for distributed, embedded computing systems. IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems , 5(2):218–229, 1997

    1997

  78. [86]

    R. P. Dick and N. K. Jha. MOGAC: A multiobjective genetic algorithm for hardware-software cosyn- thesis of distributed embedded systems. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems , 17(10):920–935, October 1998

    1998

  79. [87]

    C. L. Liu and J. W. Layland. Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard-real-time envi- ronment. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery , 20(1):46–61, 1973

    1973

  80. [88]

    Henkel and R

    J. Henkel and R. Ernst. A path-based technique for estimating hardware runtime in HW/SW- cosynthesis. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on System Synthesis , pages 116–121, Cannes, France, 1995

    1995

  81. [89]

    Fornaciari, P

    W. Fornaciari, P. Gubian, D. Sciuto, and C. Silvano. Power estimation of embedded systems: A hardware/software codesign approach. IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, 6(2):266–275, June 1998

    1998

  82. [90]

    Li and W

    Y. Li and W. Wolf. Hardware/software co-synthesis with memory hierarchies. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems , 18(10):1405–1417, October 1999

    1999

  83. [91]

    Tiwari, S

    V. Tiwari, S. Malik, and A. Wolfe. Power analysis of embedded software: a first step towards software power minimization. IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems , December 1994

    1994

  84. [92]

    Blocklove, S

    J. Blocklove, S. Garg, R. Karri, and H. Pearce. Evaluating LLMs for hardware design and test, 2024. arXiv:2405.02326v2 [cs.AR]

    2024 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Thakur, J

    S. Thakur, J. Blocklove, H. Pearce, B. Tan, S. Garg, and R. Karri. Autochip: Automating HDL generation using LLM feedback, 2024. arXiv:2311.04887v2 [cs.PL]

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Batten, N

    C. Batten, N. Pinckney, M. Liu, H. Ren, and B. Khailany. PyHDL-Eval: An LLM evaluation framework for hardware design using Python-embedded DSLs. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Machine Learning for CAD , pages 1–17, Snowbird, Utah, 2024. 20

    2024

  87. [95]

    Nakkab, S

    A. Nakkab, S. Q. Zhang, R. Karri, and S. Garg. Rome was not built in a single step: Hierarchical prompting for LLM-based chip design. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Machine Learning for CAD , pages 1–11, Snowbird, Utah, 2024

    2024

  88. [96]

    Vijayaraghavan et al

    P. Vijayaraghavan et al. Chain-of-descriptions: Improving code LLMs for VHDL code generation and summarization. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Machine Learning for CAD, pages 1–10, Snowbird, Utah, 2024

    2024

  89. [97]

    Bai et al

    Y. Bai et al. Learning to compare hardware designs for high-level synthesis. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Machine Learning for CAD , pages 1–7, Snowbird, Utah, 2024

    2024

  90. [98]

    Qin et al

    Z. Qin et al. Cross-modality program representation learning for electronic design automation with high-level synthesis. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Machine Learning for CAD , pages 1–12, Snowbird, Utah, 2024

    2024

  91. [99]

    Liang, C.-T

    R. Liang, C.-T. Ho, A. Agnesina, W.-H. Liu, and H. Ren. ReLS: Retrieval is efficient knowledge transfer for logic synthesis. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Machine Learning for CAD , pages 1–7, Snowbird, Utah, 2024

    2024

  92. [100]

    Xu et al

    K. Xu et al. Automated C/C++ program repair for high-level synthesis via large language models. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Machine Learning for CAD , pages 1–9, Snowbird, Utah, 2024. 21 Figure 1: Organization of the Fermi GPU. 22 Figure 2: The Y-...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.