Abstract
Reinforcement learning (RL) for physical design of silicon chips in a Google2021 Nature paper stirred controversy due to poorly documented claims thatraised eyebrows and drew critical media coverage. The paper withheld criticalmethodology steps and most inputs needed to reproduce results. Ourmeta-analysis shows how two separate evaluations filled in the gaps anddemonstrated that Google RL lags behind (i) human designers, (ii) a well-knownalgorithm (Simulated Annealing), and (iii) generally-available commercialsoftware, while being slower; and in a 2023 open research contest, RL methodsweren't in top 5. Crosschecked data indicate that the integrity of the Naturepaper is substantially undermined owing to errors in conduct, analysis andreporting. Before publishing, Google rebuffed internal allegations of fraud,which still stand. We note policy implications and conclusions for chip design.