MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138002452 · doi:10.1109/date.2005.228

On the Design and Verification Methodology of the Look-Aside Interface

2005· article· en· W2138002452 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 · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSystemCVerilogProgramming languageInterface (matter)Model checkingUnified Modeling LanguageDesign flowFormal verificationSet (abstract data type)Functional verificationVerificationFormal equivalence checkingComputer architectureEmbedded systemSoftwareOperating systemField-programmable gate arraySoftware development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a technique to design and verify the look-aside (LA-1) interface standard used in network processors. Our design flow includes several refinements starting from an informal UML specification until getting to an RTL modeled in Verilog. We integrate the verification of the LA-interface in the design flow by considering two intermediate levels: (1) abstract state machines (ASM); and (2) SystemC. The first one serves the verification by model checking of a set of PSL properties, while the second includes a set of assertions to be verified by simulation. To evaluate the performance of our approach, we used the rule-base model checker to verify the same properties; and the OVL library to verify the same assertions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.220 · 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