Added CT result when DCTopo is used to generate the initial placement

Signed-off-by: sakundu <sakundu@ucsd.edu>

Docs/OurProgress/README.md

@@ -5041,6 +5041,93 @@ We have performed a similar macro shuffling experiment for the BlackParrot (Quad
 - **MemPool Group:**
 We have tried a similar macro shuffling experiment for MemPool Group, but none of our runs completed (i.e., flow failure).
 
+<a id="December21"></a>
+**December 21:**  
+<a id="Question11"></a>
+**<span style="color:blue">Question 11.</span>** How does the initial placement generated by different physical synthesis tools affect the CT solution?  
+
+We observe that when the initial placement solution is generated using [Flow-2](https://github.com/TILOS-AI-Institute/MacroPlacement/blob/main/Flows/figures/flow-2.PNG) (CMP-Genus iSpatial) or DC-Topo ([links](../../Flows/scripts/DCTopoFlow/) to scripts) the final CT outcomes are similar.  
+
+The following table and screenshots provide details of Ariane133-NG45-68%-1.3ns CT macro placement when DC-Topo is used to generate the initial placement solution. 
+
+<table>
+<thead>
+  <tr>
+    <th colspan="10">Ariane133-NG45-68%-1.3ns CT result when the initial placement information is generated by DC-Topo</th>
+  </tr>
+</thead>
+<tbody>
+  <tr>
+    <td>Physical Design Stage</td>
+    <td>Core Area (um^2)</td>
+    <td>Standard Cell Area (um^2)</td>
+    <td>Macro Area (um^2)</td>
+    <td>Total Power (mW)</td>
+    <td>Wirelength (um)</td>
+    <td>WS (ns)</td>
+    <td>TNS (ns)</td>
+    <td>Congestion (H)</td>
+    <td>Congestion (V)</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>preCTS</td>
+    <td>1814274</td>
+    <td>284197</td>
+    <td>1018356</td>
+    <td>815.500</td>
+    <td>4544323</td>
+    <td>-0.155</td>
+    <td>-261.254</td>
+    <td>0.02%</td>
+    <td>0.17%</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>postCTS</td>
+    <td>1814274</td>
+    <td>286795</td>
+    <td>1018356</td>
+    <td>858.088</td>
+    <td>4599954</td>
+    <td>-0.146</td>
+    <td>-118.845</td>
+    <td>0.02%</td>
+    <td>0.20%</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>postRoute</td>
+    <td>1814274</td>
+    <td>286795</td>
+    <td>1018356</td>
+    <td>857.217</td>
+    <td>4705640</td>
+    <td>-0.203</td>
+    <td>-302.019</td>
+    <td></td>
+    <td></td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>postRouteOpt</td>
+    <td>1814274</td>
+    <td>287151</td>
+    <td>1018356</td>
+    <td>857.755</td>
+    <td>4710065</td>
+    <td>-0.206</td>
+    <td>-255.818</td>
+    <td></td>
+    <td></td>
+  </tr>
+</tbody>
+</table>
+
+<p align="center">
+<img width="300" src="./images/Ariane133_NG45_DCTopo_CT_Place.png" alg="Ariane133_NG45_DCTopo_CT_Place">
+<img width="300" src="./images/Ariane133_NG45_DCTopo_CT_Route.png" alg="Ariane133_NG45_DCTopo_CT_Route">
+</p>
+
+[Link](../../Flows/NanGate45/ariane133/README.md#macro-placement-generated-by-circuit-training-ct) to result of Ariane133-NG45-68%-1.3ns CT macro placement when [Flow-2](../../Flows/figures/flow-2.PNG) (CMP-Genus iSpatial) is used to generate the initial placement solution.
+
+
 ## **Pinned (to bottom) question list:**
   
 **<span style="color:blue">[Question 1](#Question1).</span>** How does having an initial set of placement locations (from physical synthesis) affect the (relative) quality of the CT result?  
@@ -5053,3 +5140,4 @@ We have tried a similar macro shuffling experiment for MemPool Group, but none o
 **<span style="color:blue">[Question 8](#Question8).</span>** How does the tightness of timing constraints affect the (relative) performance of CT?   
 **<span style="color:blue">[Question 9](#Question9).</span>** Are CT results stable? If not, how much does the outcome vary?  
 **<span style="color:blue">[Question 10](#Question10).</span>** What is the correlation between proxy cost and the postRouteOpt Table 1 metrics?  
+**<span style="color:blue">[Question 11](#Question10).</span>** How does the initial placement generated by different physical synthesis tools affect the CT solution?
\ No newline at end of file