1 / 32

Placement of Digital Microfluidic Biochips Using the T-tree Formulation

Placement of Digital Microfluidic Biochips Using the T-tree Formulation. Ping-Hung Yuh 1 , Chia-Lin Yang 1 , and Yao-Wen Chang 2. 1 Dept. of Computer Science & Information Engineering 2 Graduate Institute of Electronics Engineering and Dept. of Electrical Engineering

sahirah
Download Presentation

Placement of Digital Microfluidic Biochips Using the T-tree Formulation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Placement of Digital Microfluidic Biochips Using the T-tree Formulation Ping-Hung Yuh1, Chia-Lin Yang1, and Yao-Wen Chang2 1 Dept. of Computer Science & Information Engineering 2 Graduate Institute of Electronics Engineering and Dept. of Electrical Engineering National Taiwan University, Taiwan

  2. Outline • Introduction • T-tree Based Placement Formulation • Floorplanning Algorithm • Experimental Result • Conclusion

  3. Outline • Introduction • T-tree Based Placement Formulation • Floorplanning Algorithm • Experimental Result • Conclusion

  4. Digital Microfluidic Biochips • Perform laboratory procedures based on liquid particles (droplets) • The two main components: • Reconfigurable devices (electrodes) • Droplets can move freely on the reconfigurable device • Non-reconfigurable devices (detectors and reservoirs) • Only one functionality Droplets Optical detector Storage Electrodes The schematic view of a biochip (Duke Univ.) Mixing two droplets Reservoirs/Dispensing ports

  5. Digital Microfluidic Biochips (cont’d) Mix Storage Dilution Time: 1~4 Time: 4~5 Mix Dilution Mix Dilution a b Mix c Task graph Time: 5~7

  6. Dispense Resource Area Time Dispense f c Mixing 2x2-array 7 Mix a 2x3-array 4 e Mix Opt. 1x1 cell 30 b Mix Storage 1x1 cell N/A d Detection Placement Problem of Biochips • Inputs: • Sequencing graph • Microfluidic module library • Design specification: • Fixed architecture (ex: 5x5-array) and maximum assay completion time (ex: 400 sec) • Limited number of non-reconfigurable devices • Output: the schedule and placement of tasks Microfluidic Module Library A sequencing graph

  7. Previous Work • Architecture-level synthesis (scheduling and binding) • Deng et al, TCAD’01 • Architecture-level model and ILP-based method • Su and Chakrabarty, ICCAD’04 • Sequencing graph model and two heuristics • Physical placement • Su and Chakrabarty, DATE’05 • Simulated annealing based algorithm with given scheduled tasks • Unified synthesis and placement • Su and Chakrabarty, DAC’05 • Parallel recombinative simulated annealing • List scheduling and greedy placement method

  8. Dilute T Y Storage Mix X Mix Our Contribution • Formulate the execution of a bioassay as a 3D floorplan • Apply a tree-based representation (T-tree) to solve the floorplanning/placement problem Mix Storage Mix Dilute Mix Storage Time t2 Mix Mix Mix Dilute Time t1 Time t3

  9. Outline • Introduction • T-tree Based Placement Formulation • Floorplanning Algorithm • Experimental Result • Conclusion

  10. T Y X Bioassay Execution to 3D floorplan • Model each task and storage as a 3D box • Model the execution of a bioassay as a 3D floorplan • Biochip placement problem to 3Dtemporal floorplanning problem Dilute Mix Storage Time t2 Storage Mix Mix Mix Mix Dilute Mix Time t1 Time t3

  11. T Y X Review of T-tree • A 3-ary tree representation for temporalfloorplanning/placement problem Mix b Dilute c Storagess Storagess Mix a Mix a Mix b Dilute c A 3D compacted floorlpan The corresponding T-tree

  12. i j k l right child middle child left child tl = ti tj=ti+Ti tk = ti The structure of T-tree Review of T-tree (cont’d) • The T-tree keeps the geometric relation as follows: • Left child: adjacent in the T+ direction • Middle child: in the Y+ direction with the same t-coordinate • Right child: in the X+ direction with the same t- and y-coordinates Mix b Dilute c Ti: duration of i Storage s Storages Mix a Mix a Mix b Dilute c ti: starting time of i

  13. Dispense Mix c f a e Mix b Mix Detection d Modeling Tasks in a T-tree • Model each task as a node in a T-tree f Dispense e c a b d The corresponding T-tree A sequencing graph

  14. Dispense Mix c f a e Mix b Mix Detection d Modeling Storages • Model each storage as a node in a T-tree • Each edge in a sequencing graph represents a storage f Dispense e c s2 s1 Storage a b s2 s1 s4 s3 d s5 s3 s4 s5 The corresponding T-tree A sequencing graph

  15. i j k l right child middle child left child tl = ti tj=ti+Ti tk = ti The structure of T-tree Modeling Storages (cont’d) • The storage constraint: the duration of one storage covers the time gap between two data-dependent tasks • Insert a storage node in one of the feasible locations in a T-tree • Ensure that ts = tb + Tb t c s Tb b b feasible location ta=tb+Tb tb td=te=ta a s c d e Example of feasible locations

  16. Dispense f c Mix a e Mix Dispense b Mix d Detection Modeling the Design Specification • The fixed-cube constraint: • Model the fixed architecture and max. completion time as a 3D cube • A feasible floorplan must be within this 3D cube • The resource constraint: • # of non-reconfigurable tasks is limited at any time • Add the virtual edges in the sequencing graph Virtual edge Max. completion time A feasible floorplan Fixed architecture

  17. Outline • Introduction • T-tree Based Placement Formulation • Floorplanning Algorithm • Experimental Result • Conclusion

  18. Floorplanning Algorithm • Based on simulated annealing (SA) • The modified SA flow: • Detect the violation of the storage constraints • Delete unused storages in a T-tree for packing efficiency Perturbation Storage Constraint Feasibility Detection &Tree Reconstruction Data Dependency Number of storagesAdjustment Packing Termination? No Yes

  19. Floorplanning Algorithm (cont’d) • Cost function: • Volume • # of storages • Penalty term for fixed-cube constraint

  20. Two Methods for Fixed-cube Constraint • Guide the tree perturbation based on cube violation probability pw, ph,and pt • pw = k/n, where k is the # of floorplans whose width exceeds the 3D cube in the last n iterations • If pw is large, increase the probability of placing tasks along the Y or T direction • Add the excessive length into the cost function An infeasible floorplan Max. completion time Excessive length Fixed architecture

  21. Outline • Introduction • T-tree Based Placement Formulation • Floorplanning Algorithm • Experimental Result • Conclusion

  22. Experimental Settings • Implemented our algorithm in C++ language on a 1.2 GHz SUN Blade-2000 machine with 8GB memory • Implemented the algorithm of [Su and Chakrabarty, DAC’05] on the same machine • Tested two bioassays: • Colorimetric protein assay from [Su and Chakrabarty, DAC’05] • Multiplexed in-virto diagnostics from [Su and Chakrabarty, ICCAD’04] • Assigned three different design specifications (fixed-cube constraints) to each bioassay

  23. Experimental Result volume = area × assay completion time Result that cannot satisfy the fixed-cube constraint T-tree based algorithm is more efficient and effective

  24. Resulting Placement of the Protein Bioassay Volume = 10x10x270 (10x10x400 fixed-cube constraint)

  25. Outline • Introduction • T-tree Based Placement Formulation • Floorplanning Algorithm • Experimental Result • Conclusion

  26. Conclusion • Formulated the placement problem of biochips as the temporal floorplanning problem • First work to apply a topological representation to the placement problem of biochips • Demonstrated the effectiveness and efficiency of our algorithm • Future work: • Consider fault and defect tolerance during floorplanning

  27. Thank you for your attention

  28. Q & A r91089@csie.ntu.edu.tw

  29. Question # 1 • Q: Why choose the T-tree representation over other 3D representations (3D-subTCG, ST, 3D-slicing tree) ? • A: Three reasons: • 1. T-tree models the compacted floorplan, thus it has the advantage of volume optimization • 2. T-tree is more efficient for large-scale circuits than 3D-subTCG, ST • 3. T-tree is more effective in handling the storages • T-tree can determine the # of storages and duration of each storage before packing with only O(n) time • 3D-subTCG and ST needs O(n^2) time before packing • 3D-slicing tree cannot obtain this information before packing • It is difficult for 3D-slicing tree to satisfy the storage constraint

  30. Question # 2 • Q: Why add the # of storages in the cost function? • A: Two reasons: • 1. Generally, the smaller # of storages, the more compact 3D floorplan we can have • 2. Release the volume occupied by storages for reconfigurable task to use

  31. Question # 3 • Q: Why your algorithm is better than previous work? • A: There are two reasons: • 1. T-tree is better in volume optimization than previous greedy placement method • 2. Smoother optimization process by minimizing volume instead of area plus completion time

More Related