MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166178773 · doi:10.1145/330855.330947

Formal hardware verification by integrating HOL and MDG

2000· article· en· W2166178773 on OpenAlexafffund
Vijay Kumar Pisini, Sofiène Tahar, Paul Curzon, Xiaoyu Song

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)Université de MontréalConcordia University
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsHOLAutomated theorem provingFormal equivalence checkingComputer scienceFormal verificationIntelligent verificationAutomated proof checkingModel checkingProgramming languageFormal methodsAbstractionVerificationFunctional verificationEquivalence (formal languages)Runtime verificationHigh-level verificationMathematicsSoftwareSoftware developmentSoftware constructionDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to overcome the limitations of automated tools and the cumbersome proof process of interactive theorem proving, we adopt a hybrid approach for formal hardware verification which uses the strengths of theorem proving (HOL) with powerful mathematical tools such as induction and abstraction, and the advantages of automated tools (MDG) which support equivalence checking and model checking. The MDG system is a decision diagram based verification tool, primarily designed for hardware verification. HOL is a theorem prover built on higher-order logic.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207