skip to main content
research-article

BoA-PTA: A Bayesian Optimization Accelerated PTA Solver for SPICE Simulation

Published:24 December 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

One of the greatest challenges in integrated circuit design is the repeated executions of computationally expensive SPICE simulations, particularly when highly complex chip testing/verification is involved. Recently, pseudo-transient analysis (PTA) has shown to be one of the most promising continuation SPICE solvers. However, the PTA efficiency is highly influenced by the inserted pseudo-parameters. In this work, we proposed BoA-PTA, a Bayesian optimization accelerated PTA that can substantially accelerate simulations and improve convergence performance without introducing extra errors. Furthermore, our method does not require any pre-computation data or offline training. The acceleration framework can either speed up ongoing, repeated simulations (e.g., Monte-Carlo simulations) immediately or improve new simulations of completely different circuits. BoA-PTA is equipped with cutting-edge machine learning techniques, such as deep learning, Gaussian process, Bayesian optimization, non-stationary monotonic transformation, and variational inference via reparameterization. We assess BoA-PTA in 43 benchmark circuits and real industrial circuits against other SOTA methods and demonstrate an average of 1.5x (maximum 3.5x) for the benchmark circuits and up to 250x speedup for the industrial circuit designs over the original CEPTA without sacrificing any accuracy.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Adams Ryan Prescott and Stegle Oliver. 2008. Gaussian process product models for nonparametric nonstationarity. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning. 18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. [2] Akbari Meysam, Hashemipour Omid, and Moradi Farshad. 2018. Input offset estimation of CMOS integrated circuits in weak inversion. IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems 26, 9 (2018), 18121816.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. [3] Barby J. A. and Guindi R.. 1993. CircuitSim93: A circuit simulator benchmarking methodology case study. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual IEEE International ASIC Conference and Exhibit. 531535.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. [4] Bishop Christopher M.. 2007. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. [5] Bornn Luke, Shaddick Gavin, and Zidek James V.. 2012. Modeling nonstationary processes through dimension expansion. Journal of the American Statistical Association 107, 497 (2012), 281289.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. [6] Stephen Boyd and Vandenberghe Lieven. 2004. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. [7] Brochu Eric, Cora Vlad M., and Freitas Nando De. 2010. A tutorial on Bayesian optimization of expensive cost functions, with application to active user modeling and hierarchical reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1012.2599.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. [8] Chen Xiaoming, Wang Yu, and Yang Huazhong. 2017. Parallel Sparse Direct Solver for Integrated Circuit Simulation. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. [9] Günther Michael and Feldmann Uwe. 1995. The DAE-index in electric circuit simulation. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 39, 5–6 (1995), 573582.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. [10] Hernández-Lobato José Miguel, Hoffman Matthew W., and Ghahramani Zoubin. 2014. Predictive entropy search for efficient global optimization of black-box functions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 (2014), 918926.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. [11] Huang Guyue, Hu Jingbo, He Yifan, Liu Jialong, Ma Mingyuan, Shen Zhaoyang, Wu Juejian, et al. 2021. Machine learning for electronic design automation: A survey. ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems 26, 5 (2021), Article 40, 46 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [12] Hutter Frank, Hoos Holger H., and Leyton-Brown Kevin. 2011. Sequential model-based optimization for general algorithm configuration. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning and Intelligent Optimization. 507523.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. [13] Jin Zhou, Wu Xiao, Niu Dan, Guan Xiaoli, and Inoue Yasuaki. 2015. Effective ramping algorithm and restart algorithm in the SPICE3 implementation for DPTA method. Nonlinear Theory and Its Applications, IEICE 6, 4 (2015), 499511.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. [14] Jones Donald R., Schonlau Matthias, and Welch William J.. 1998. Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. Journal of Global Optimization 13, 4 (1998), 455492.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. [15] Kaelbling Leslie Pack, Littman Michael L., and Moore Andrew W.. 1996. Reinforcement learning: A survey. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 4 (1996), 237285.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. [16] Kennedy Marc C. and O’Hagan Anthony. 2001. Bayesian calibration of computer models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 63, 3 (2001), 425464.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. [17] Kingma Diederik P. and Ba Jimmy. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. [18] Kingma Diederik P. and Welling Max. 2014. Auto-encoding variational Bayes. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR’14).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. [19] LeCun Yann, Bengio Yoshua, and Hinton Geoffrey. 2015. Deep learning. Nature 521, 7553 (2015), 436444.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. [20] Liu Bo, Fernández Francisco V., and Gielen Georges. 2010. An accurate and efficient yield optimization method for analog circuits based on computing budget allocation and memetic search technique. In Proceedings of the 2010 Design, Automation, and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition (DATE’10). 11061111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. [21] Lyu Wenlong, Yang Fan, Yan Changhao, Zhou Dian, and Zeng Xuan. 2018. Batch Bayesian optimization via multi-objective acquisition ensemble for automated analog circuit design. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning. 33063314.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. [22] Ma Yuzhe, Ren Haoxing, Khailany Brucek, Sikka Harbinder, Luo Lijuan, Natarajan Karthikeyan, and Yu Bei. 2019. High performance graph convolutional networks with applications in testability analysis. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Design Automation Conference (DAC’18).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. [23] Mockus Jonas. 2012. Bayesian Approach to Global Optimization: Theory and Applications. Vol. 37. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. [24] Negel L. W.. 1975. A Computer Program to Simulate Semiconductor Circuits. College of Engineering, University of California.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. [25] Paul Bipul Chandra and Roy Kaushik. 2002. Testing cross-talk induced delay faults in static CMOS circuit through dynamic timing analysis. In Proceedings of the International Test Conference. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 384390.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. [26] Rasmussen Carl Edward and Williams Christopher K. I.. 2006. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. [27] Ren Haoxing, Kokai George F., Turner Walker J., and Ku Ting-Sheng. 2020. ParaGraph: Layout parasitics and device parameter prediction using graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2020 57th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC’20). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. [28] Rezvani Mohammad Ali, Asli Mokhtar Alinia, Khandan Sahar, Mousavi Hossein, and Aghbolagh Zahra Shokri. 2017. Synthesis and characterization of new nanocomposite CTAB-PTA@ CS as an efficient heterogeneous catalyst for oxidative desulphurization of gasoline. Chemical Engineering Journal 312 (2017), 243251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. [29] Roychowdhury Jaijeet and Melville Robert. 2005. Delivering global DC convergence for large mixed-signal circuits via homotopy/continuation methods. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 25, 1 (2005), 6678.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [30] Scott Warren, Frazier Peter, and Powell Warren Buckler. 2011. The correlated knowledge gradient for simulation optimization of continuous parameters using Gaussian process regression. SIAM Journal on Optimization 21, 3 (2011), 9961026.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. [31] Shahriari Bobak, Swersky Kevin, Wang Ziyu, Adams Ryan P., and Freitas Nando De. 2015. Taking the human out of the loop: A review of Bayesian optimization. Proceedings of the IEEE 104, 1 (2015), 148175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. [32] Snoek Jasper, Larochelle Hugo, and Adams Ryan P.. 2012. Practical Bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 29512959.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. [33] Snoek Jasper, Swersky Kevin, Zemel Rich, and Adams Ryan. 2014. Input warping for Bayesian optimization of non-stationary functions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning. 16741682.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. [34] Srinivas Niranjan, Krause Andreas, Seeger Matthias, and Kakade Sham M.. 2010. Gaussian process optimization in the bandit setting: No regret and experimental design. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Machine Learning. 10151022.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. [35] Maten E. J. W. ter, Beelen Theo G. J., Vries Alex de, and Beurden Maikel van. 2012. Robust time-domain source stepping for DC-solution of circuit equations. In Proceedings of Scientific Computing in Electrical Engineering (SCEE’12).3940.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. [36] Titsias Michalis K.. 2009. Variational learning of inducing variables in sparse Gaussian processes. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. 567574.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. [37] Ljiljana Trajkovic. 2012. DC operating points of transistor circuits. Nonlinear Theory Its Applications, IEICE 3, 3 (2012), 287300.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. [38] Udave Diego Ernesto Cortés, Ogrodzki Jan, and Anda G. M. A. de. 2012. DC large-scale simulation of nonlinear circuits on parallel processors. International Journal of Electronics and Telecommunications 58, 3 (2012), 285295.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. [39] Ushida Akio, Yamagami Yoshihiro, Nishio Yoshifumi, Kinouchi Ikkei, and Inoue Yasuaki. 2002. An efficient algorithm for finding multiple DC solutions based on the SPICE-oriented Newton homotopy method. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 21, 3 (2002), 337348.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. [40] Ushida A., Yamagami Y., Nishio Y., Kinouchi I., and Inoue Y.. 2006. An efficient algorithm for finding multiple DC solutions based on the SPICE-oriented Newton homotopy method. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 21, 3 (2006), 337348.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. [41] Wang Laung-Terng, Chang Yao-Wen, and Cheng Kwang-Ting Tim. 2009. Electronic Design Automation: Synthesis, Verification, and Test. Morgan Kaufmann.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. [42] Wang Zi and Jegelka Stefanie. 2017. Max-value entropy search for efficient Bayesian optimization. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, Volume 70. 36273635.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. [43] Wilson Andrew Gordon, Hu Zhiting, Salakhutdinov Ruslan, and Xing Eric P.. 2016. Deep kernel learning. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. 370378.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. [44] Wu Xiao, Jin Zhou, Niu Dan, and Inoue Yasuaki. 2014. A PTA method using numerical integration algorithms with artificial damping for solving nonlinear DC circuits. Nonlinear Theory and Its Applications, IEICE 5, 4 (2014), 512522.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. [45] Xing W. W., Triantafyllidis V., Shah A. A., Nair P. B., and Zabaras Nicholas. 2016. Manifold learning for the emulation of spatial fields from computational models. Journal of Computational Physics 326 (2016), 666690.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. [46] Yamamura Kiyotaka and Kuroki Wataru. 2006. An efficient and globally convergent homotopy method for finding DC operating points of nonlinear circuits. In Proceedings of the 2006 Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASP-DAC’06). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 408415. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. [47] Yamamura K. and Sekiguchi T.. 1999. A fixed-point homotopy method for solving modified nodal equations. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I Fundamental Theory Applications 46, 6 (1999), 654665.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. [48] Yilmaz E. and Green M. M.. 1999. Some standard SPICE DC algorithms revisited: Why does SPICE still not converge? In Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS’99), Vol. 6. 286–289.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. [49] Yilmaz Ecevit and Green Michael M.. 1999. Some standard SPICE DC algorithms revisited: Why does SPICE still not converge? In Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS’99), Vol. 6. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 286289.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. [50] Yu Hong, Inoue Yasuaki, Sako Kazutoshi, Hu Xiaochuan, and Huang Zhangcai. 2007. An effective SPICE3 implementation of the compound element pseudo-transient algorithm. IEICE Transactions on Fundamentals of Electronics, Communications and Computer Sciences 90-A, 10 (2007), 21242131.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. [51] Zhang Shuhan, Lyu Wenlong, Yang Fan, Yan Changhao, Zhou Dian, and Zeng Xuan. 2019. Bayesian optimization approach for analog circuit synthesis using neural network. In Proceedings of the 2019 Design, Automation, and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition (DATE’19). 14631468.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. [52] Zhang Shuhan, Lyu Wenlong, Yang Fan, Yan Changhao, Zhou Dian, Zeng Xuan, and Hu Xiangdong. 2019. An efficient multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization approach for analog circuit synthesis. In Proceedings of the 2019 56th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC’19). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. [53] Zhang Shuhan, Yang Fan, Zhou Dian, and Zeng Xuan. 2020. An efficient asynchronous batch Bayesian optimization approach for analog circuit synthesis. In Proceedings of the 2020 57th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC’20). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. [54] Zhu Ciyou, Byrd Richard H., Lu Peihuang, and Nocedal Jorge. 1997. Algorithm 778: L-BFGS-B: Fortran subroutines for large-scale bound-constrained optimization. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 23, 4 (1997), 550560.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. BoA-PTA: A Bayesian Optimization Accelerated PTA Solver for SPICE Simulation

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems
        ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems  Volume 28, Issue 2
        March 2023
        409 pages
        ISSN:1084-4309
        EISSN:1557-7309
        DOI:10.1145/3573314
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 24 December 2022
        • Online AM: 13 August 2022
        • Accepted: 24 July 2022
        • Revised: 31 May 2022
        • Received: 11 March 2022
        Published in todaes Volume 28, Issue 2

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Refereed
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)163
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Full Text

      View this article in Full Text.

      View Full Text

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format