On the formal verification of a SystemC Packet switch model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present an approach to formally verify SystemC intellectual properties (IPs). We considered as illustrative case a Packet Switch model part of the SystemC library. We propose a verification methodology composed of two steps: (1) static code analysis using abstract interpretation; and (2) model checking. This latter is performed thanks to an integration of both the Property Specification Language (PSL) and the SystemC semantics in the Abstract States Machines (ASMs). We propose a technique based on a reachability algorithm part of the AsmL tool that translates the ASM code combining both the design and the properties into a finite state machine (FSM) representation. We use the generated FSM to run model checking on an external tool, here SMV. Our approach takes advantage from the ASM language capabilities to model designs at the system level as well as from the power of the AsmL tool in generating both a C# code and an FSM representation from an ASMmodel. The experimental results illustrate, in particular, a corner-case bug that we were able to detect in the design under verification.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".