BiN-EdgePruning: Edge pruning based on biased neighborhoods for printed circuit netlists


Abstract

Automatic schematic generation is a key aspect of reverse engineering for printed circuit boards, and its cost is usually proportional to the size of the circuit. The generation of schematics for large-scale, realistic netlists poses a significant challenge within this domain. Netlist partitioning is a major approach to address this challenge, which reduces the cost of schematic generation by segmenting netlists into sub-netlists of moderate size according to different functional modules. Traditional methods that utilize expert systems for netlist partitioning exhibit high sensitivity to parameters and demonstrate poor adaptability across different netlists. Furthermore, their experimental data are typically constructed manually, making them difficult to reproduce. To address these limitations, this paper first presents a set of graph datasets designed specifically for netlist partitioning experiments. Second, to tackle the neighborhood bias problem prevalent in real circuit netlists, we propose a novel neighborhood bias edge pruning algorithm termed BiN-EdgePruning. Building on this foundation, we integrate BiN-EdgePruning with graph convolutional networks to achieve end-to-end netlist partitioning, thereby eliminating the need for unnecessary parameter tuning. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed pruning algorithm significantly enhances the accuracy of PCB netlist partitioning across various graph neural network architectures.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].