MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098552614 · doi:10.5555/1266366.1266621

Abstraction and refinement techniques in automated design debugging

2007· article· en· W2098552614 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDesign, Automation, and Test in Europe · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVLSI and Analog Circuit Testing
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebuggingComputer scienceAbstractionBenchmark (surveying)BottleneckAlgorithmic program debuggingProgramming languageDesign flowComputer engineeringEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Verification is a major bottleneck in the VLSI design flow with the tasks of error detection, error localization, and error correction consuming up to 70% of the overall design effort. This work proposes a departure from conventional debugging techniques by introducing abstraction and refinement during error localization. Under this new framework, existing debugging techniques can handle large designs with long counter-examples yet remain run time and memory efficient. Experiments on benchmark and industrial designs confirm the effectiveness of the proposed framework and encourage further development of abstraction and refinement methodologies for existing debugging techniques.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.235 · 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