MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026007917 · doi:10.1145/2228360.2228530

Path directed abstraction and refinement in SAT-based design debugging

2012· article· en· W2026007917 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Keng, Andreas Veneris

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebuggingComputer scienceAbstractionWindow (computing)Path (computing)Overhead (engineering)Spurious relationshipAlgorithmic program debuggingTask (project management)Nexus (standard)Domain (mathematical analysis)Parallel computingProgramming languageAlgorithmEmbedded systemOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The past decade has seen a disproportionate amount of resources dedicated towards verification as compared to actual design. It is reported that one third of this overhead is due to the resource-intensive task of manual debugging. To relieve this burden, this work introduces the novel concept of path directed debugging within a window-based abstraction/refinement framework. The algorithm divides the error trace into non-overlapping time-windows where each window is analyzed separately. Subsequent windows are replaced with abstracted over-approximations derived from failing paths in the time domain. Using this abstracted model, each solution found is processed through an additional verification step that removes spurious solutions and simultaneously refines the problem. This paper also develops the theory that shows that the proposed approach is complete, a fact that mitigates the incompleteness inherent in past time-window based debugging methods. Experimental results on industrial designs with long error traces show a 55% decrease in peak memory usage resulting in 78% more instances being solved when compared to previous work.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207