MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293025108 · doi:10.1145/3489517.3530635

High-level design methods for hardware security

2022· article· en· W4293025108 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 59th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPhysical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) and Hardware Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNew York University Abu DhabiNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHardware security moduleModular designComputer scienceIntellectual propertyEmbedded systemElectronicsState (computer science)Complement (music)Computer hardwareComputer securityOperating systemCryptographyEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the globalization of the electronics supply chain, hardware engineers are increasingly interested in modifying their chip designs to protect their intellectual property (IP) or the privacy of the final users. However, the integration of state-of-the-art solutions for hardware and hardware-assisted security is not fully automated, requiring the amendment of stable tools and industrial toolchains. This significantly limits the application in industrial designs, potentially affecting the security of the resulting chips. We discuss how existing solutions can be adapted to implement security features at higher levels of abstractions (during high-level synthesis or directly at the register-transfer level) and complement current industrial design and verification flows. Our modular framework allows designers to compose these solutions and create additional protection layers.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.214 · 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