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 OpenAlexaff
Ali Habibi, Asif Iqbal Ahmed, O.A. Mohamed, S. Tahar

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.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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

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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDesign, Automation, and Test in EuropeSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207