Clustering-based failure triage for RTL regression debugging
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regression verification at the pre-silicon stage has experienced a dramatic boost in capabilities over the past years. With the aid of assertions, improved simulation coverage and formal verification tools, a vast amount of trace data and myriads of failures are often generated after each regression run. Along these lines, modern flows face an emerging need to appropriately categorize, prioritize and distribute these failures to the engineer(s) best-suited for detailed debugging of each failure. This task is known as failure triage. Despite its resource-intensive nature, triage remains a predominantly manual process. In this work, an automated data-mining failure triage framework is introduced that mines simulation and SAT-based design debugging data, uncovers relations among verification failures and automatically groups the related ones together. The core characteristic of the framework is a novel feature-based representation for verification failures and a new multiple-pass clustering strategy that surpass previous methodologies in accuracy, robustness and flexibility. The proposed triage engine achieves an 89% average accuracy in failure categorization and compared to existing solutions, it reduces the number of misplaced verification failures by 47% on the average.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it