Efficient Coverage-Driven Stimulus Generation Using Simultaneous SAT Solving, with Application to SystemVerilog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SystemVerilog provides powerful language constructs for verification, and one of them is the covergroup functional coverage model. This model is designed as a complement to assertion verification, that is, it has the advantage of defining cross-coverage over multiple coverage points. In this article, a coverage-driven verification (CDV) approach is formulated as a simultaneous Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problem that is based on covergroups. The coverage bins defined by the functional model are converted into Conjunction Normal Form (CNF) and then solved together by our proposed simultaneous SAT algorithm PLNSAT to generate stimuli for improving coverage. The basic PLNSAT algorithm is then extended in our second proposed algorithm GPLNSAT, which exploits additional information gleaned from the structure of SystemVerilog covergroups. Compared to generating stimuli separately, the simultaneous SAT approaches can share learned knowledge across each coverage target, thus reducing the overall solving time drastically. Experimental results on a UART circuit and the largest ITC benchmark circuits show that the proposed algorithms can achieve 10.8x speedup on average and outperform state-of-the-art techniques in most of the benchmarks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".