Automated Rectification Methodologies to Functional State-Space Unreachability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the modern design cycle, significant manual resources are dedicated to fix a design when verification shows that a state is not reachable. Today there is little automation to aid an engineer in understanding why a state is not reachable and how to correct it. This paper presents a novel methodology that automates this task. In detail, a process that involves intertwined steps of state approximation, reachability analysis and traditional debugging is developed to identify design locations where fixes can be applied so the target state becomes reachable. An initial formulation identifies such error locations that, when corrected, can make the target state reachable directly from the existing reachable set of states. This is later extended for the cases where more than one state transition is required to reach an unreachable state from the existing reachable set. Empirical results on industrial level designs show a performance which is an order of magnitude faster than the state-of-the-art confirming the practicality of the proposed automated methodology.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".