MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616807090 · doi:10.1109/tcad.2017.2705123

MCXplore: Automating the Validation Process of DRAM Memory Controller Designs

2017· article· en· W2616807090 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Hassan, Hiren Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCorrectnessConstruct (python library)Set (abstract data type)DramModel checkingProcess (computing)Programming languageRegression testingSoftware engineeringReliability engineeringEmbedded systemSoftwareComputer hardwareSoftware developmentEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an automated framework for the validation of memory controllers (MCs) called MCXplore. In developing this framework, we construct formal models for memory requests and command interactions. MCXplore enables validation engineers to define their test plans precisely using temporal logic specifications. We use the NuSMV model-checker to generate counterexamples that serve as test templates. MCXplore uses these test templates to generate memory tests to validate the correctness properties of the MC. We show the effectiveness of MCXplore by validating various state-of-the-art MC features as well as hard-to-detect timing violations. We also provide a set of predefined test plans, and regression test suites that validate essential properties of modern MCs. MCXplore is an open-source framework to allow validation engineers and researchers to extend and use.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.086
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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and SystemsSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207