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

High-level design methods for hardware security

2022· article· en· W4293025108 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Pilato, Donatella Sciuto, Benjamin Tan, Siddharth Garg, Ramesh Karri

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.

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)0.005
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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

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
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 59th ACM/IEEE Design Automation ConferenceSame topicPhysical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) and Hardware SecurityFrench-language works237,207