dogleg77

Nature papers get retracted every year. I have not heard of DAC papers retracted.

If the Nature paper made it clear that RL is not seriously expected to work on non-TPU chips, it would have have probably been rejected. If RL works on many other chips, then evidence should be easy to publish.

The point is that the Cheng et al results and paper were shown to Google and apparently okayed by Google points of contact. After this, complaining that Cheng et al didn't ask someone outside Google makes little sense. These far fetched excuses and emotional wording by Jeff Dean leave a big cloud over the Nature work. If he is confident everything is fine, he would not bother.

To clarify "you'd expect" - if Jeff Dean is correct, he'd deny problems and if he's wrong he'd deny problems. So, his response carries little information. Rationally, this should be done by someone else with a track record in chip implementation.

Chip designers run EDAtools on premises. How would EDA companies have access to customer data? Maybe for debugging purposes under NDA, but that won't allow training on customer IP.

No, it doesn't suggest that. Complaints are often dismissed on technicalities or because they are written poorly.

Google claimed their new algorithm as a breakthrough. If this were the so, the algorithm would have helped design chips in many different cases. Now, the defense is that it only works for some inputs, and those inputs cannot be shared. This is not a serious defense and looks like a coverup.

That is misleading. The first two authors left Google in August 2022 under unclear circumstances. The code and data were owned by Google, that's probably why Kahng continued discussibg code and data with his Google contacts. He received clear answers from several Google employees, so if they were at fault, Google should apologize rather than blame Cheng and Kahng.

I am referring to direct comparisons in Cheng et al and in Stronger Baselines that everyone is discussing. Let's assume your point about "might have been insufficient". We don't currently have the luxury to be frequentists, as we don't have many academic groups reporting results for running Google code. From the Bayesian perspective, that's the evidence we have.

Maybe you know more such published papers than I do, or you know the reasons why there aren't many. Somehow this lack of follow-up over three years suggests a dead-end.

As for "belittle", how would you describe the scientific term "regurgitating" used by Jeff Dean? Also, the term "fundamentally flawed" in reference to a 2023 paper by two senior professors with serious expertise and track record in the field, that for some reason no other experts in the field criticize? Where was Jeff Dean when that paper was published and reported by the media?

Unless Cheng and Kahng agree with this characterization, Jeff Dean's timing and language are counterproductive. If he ends up being wrong on this, what's the right thing to do?

At least they are acknowledging skepticism now. That's a step in the right direction.

You must be kidding. They did reach out and documented their interactions, with names of engineers, dates, and all. Someone is ghosting someone here.

How would I know either way?

Someone mentioned here before that Google folks have been using "hyperbolae". So, if MediaTek can clarify how they are using AlphaChip, everyone wins.

Please specify what you mean by "had a hand in TPU" and where else he had his hand. Thank you

Something is off with your source references. Chatterjee's amended complaint is a legal document filed under penalty of perjury, accepted by a US judge, available publicly, apparently not "thrown out". How does an earlier document figure into this? How do we know it was "thrown out" and for what reason? Obviously, a later document is what matters.

Also, you are using an unreviewed document from Google not published in any conference to counter published papers with specific results, primarily the Cheng et al paper. Jeff Dean did like that paper, so he can take it up with the conference and convince them to unpublish it. If he can't, maybe he is wrong.

Perhaps, you are biased toward Google, but why do think we should trust a document that was neither peer-reviewed nor published at a conference?

The Google internal paper by Chatterjee and the Cheng et al paper from UCSD made such comparisons with Simulated Annealing. The annealer in the Nature paper was easy to improve. When given the same time budget, the improved annealer produced better solutions than AlphaChip. When you give both more time, SA remains ahead. Just read published papers.

I am trying to understand what you mean here by potential to disrupt. AlphaChip addresses one out of hundreds of tasks in chip design. Macro placement is a part of mixed-size placement, which is handled just fine by existing tools, many academic tools, open-source tools, and Nvidia AutoDMP. Even if AlphaChip was commonly accepted as a breakthrough, there is no disruption here. Direct comparisons from the last 3 years show that AlphaChip is worse. Granted, Google is belittling these comparisons, but that's what you'd expect. In any case, evidence is evidence.

What did the TPU physical design team say about this publicly? Can you also point to a statement from MediaTek? (I've seen a quote in Google blog, but was unable to confirm it). Who in the TF-agents team has serious physical design background?