MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1663771973

Formal Methods in Automated Design Debugging

2010· book· en· W1663771973 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sean Safarpour

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2010
Typebook
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsDebuggingComputer scienceAlgorithmic program debuggingAbstractionDebuggerLeverage (statistics)BottleneckProgramming languageEmbedded systemArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relentless growth in size and complexity of semiconductor devices over the last decades continues to present new challenges to the electronic design community. Today, functional debugging is a bottleneck that jeopardizes the future growth of the industry as it can account for up to 30% of the overall design effort. To alleviate the manual debugging burden for industrial problems, scalable, practical and robust automated debugging solutions are required.
\nThis dissertation presents novel techniques and methodologies to bridge the gap between
\ncurrent capabilities of automated debuggers and the strict industry requirements. The contributions proposed leverage powerful advancements made in the formal method community, such as model checking and reasoning engines, to significantly ease the debugging effort.
\nThe first contribution, abstraction and refinement, is a systematic methodology that reduces the complexity of debugging problems by abstracting irrelevant sections of the circuits under analysis. Powerful abstraction techniques are developed for netlists as well as hierarchical and
\nmodular designs. Experiments demonstrate that an abstraction and refinement methodology
\nrequires up to 200 times less run-time and 27 times less memory than a state-of-the-art debugger.
\nThe second contribution, Bounded Model Debugging (BMD), is a debugging methodology
\nbased on the observation that erroneous behaviour is more likely caused by errors excited temporally close to observation points. BMD systematically generates a series of consecutively larger yet more complete debugging problems to be solved. Experiments show the effectiveness of BMD as 93% of the large problems are solved with BMD versus 34% without BMD.
\nA third contribution is an automated debugging formulation based on maximum satisfiability. The formulation is used to build a powerful two step, coarse and fine grained debugging framework providing up to 980 times performance improvements.
\nThe final contribution of this thesis is a trace reduction technique that uses reachability analysis to identify the observed failure with fewer simulation events. Experiments demonstrate that many redundant state transitions can be removed resulting in traces with up to 100 times
\nfewer events than the original.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207