MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237512363 · doi:10.1109/iccad.2014.7001426

Multiple clock domain synchronization in a QBF-based verification environment

2014· article· en· W4237512363 on OpenAlexaff
Djordje Maksimovic, Long Bao Le, Andreas Veneris

Bibliographic record

Venue2014 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOverhead (engineering)Synchronization (alternating current)Model checkingClock synchronizationFormal verificationBoolean satisfiability problemTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmParallel computingEmbedded systemProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern designs are growing in size and complexity, becoming increasingly harder to verify. Today, they are architected to include multiple clock domains as a measure to reduce power consumption. Verifying them proves to be a computationally intensive and challenging task as it requires their clocks to be synchronized. To achieve synchronization, existing Boolean satisfiability-based methodologies add hardware to combine the clock domains before transforming them into their iterative logic array representation (ILA). As a consequence, this results in the addition of redundant time-frames adding overhead during verification. This paper introduces a novel framework to verify designs with multiple clocks using Quantified Boolean Formula satisfiability (QBF). We first present a formulation that models an ILA representation with symbolic universal quantification to achieve synchronization. This is later extended with the use of a clock divider to overcome inefficiencies. The net effect is the reduction in the number of redundant time-frames. Furthermore, the usage of QBF results in significant memory savings when compared to traditional methods. Experiments on bounded model checking demonstrate memory reductions of 76% on average with competitive run-time performance.

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)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2014 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD)Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207