MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989578025 · doi:10.1109/tc.2012.163

Post-silicon code coverage for multiprocessor system-on-chip designs

2012· article· en· W1989578025 on OpenAlexaff
Kyle Balston, Mehdi Karimibiuki, Alan J. Hu, A. Ivanov, Steven J. E. Wilton

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Computers · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVLSI and Analog Circuit Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSemiconductor Research Corporation
KeywordsComputer scienceSiliconSilicon chipMultiprocessingMeasure (data warehouse)ChipCorrectnessEmbedded systemCode (set theory)BootingReliability engineeringParallel computingSet (abstract data type)EngineeringMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsTelecommunicationsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective techniques for post-silicon validation are required to better evaluate functional correctness of increasingly complex multi and many-core SoCs. However, there is little data evaluating the coverage of post-silicon validation efforts on industrial-scale designs. In this paper, we address this knowledge gap by instrumenting a nontrivial SoC with on-chip coverage monitors to measure the coverage achieved by typical post-silicon validation tests, such as booting the operating system (OS). We compare coverage achieved pre and post-silicon, and also measure the area overhead required to monitor post-silicon coverage. Our results show that the typical test of booting the OS often achieves high coverage, well correlated to what is achieved by pre-silicon directed tests, but in some blocks the coverage can be low or markedly different between pre and post-silicon, highlighting the importance of post-silicon validation in general and post-silicon coverage measurement in particular.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on ComputersSame topicVLSI and Analog Circuit TestingFrench-language works237,207