skip to main content
research-article

Mining Missing Assumptions from Counter-Examples

Authors Info & Claims
Published:25 January 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

During the formal functional verification of Register-Transfer Level designs, a false failure is often observed. Most of the time, this failure is caused by an underconstrained model. The analysis of the root cause for the verification error and the creation of missing assumptions are a significant time burden. In this article, we present a methodology to automatically mine these missing assumptions from counter-examples. First, multiple counter-examples are generated for the same property. Then, relevant behaviors are mined from the counter-examples. Finally, corresponding assumptions are filtered and a small amount is returned to the user for review.

References

  1. Martín Abadi, Leslie Lamport, and Pierre Wolper. 1989. Realizable and unrealizable specifications of reactive systems. In ICALP’89. Springer, 1--17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Accellera. Open Verification Library (OVL). Retrieved April 2014 from http://accellera.org/activities/working-groups/ovl.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Michele Bertasi, Giuseppe Di Guglielmo, and Graziano Pravadelli. 2013. Automatic generation of compact formal properties for effective error detection. In CODES+ISSS’13. IEEE, 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Armin Biere, Alessandro Cimatti, Edmund M. Clarke, and Yunshan Zhu. 1999. Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In TACAS’99. Springer, 193--207. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Robert K. Brayton and Alan Mishchenko. 2010. ABC: An academic industrial-strength verification tool. In CAV’10. Springer, 24--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Krishnendu Chatterjee, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Barbara Jobstmann. 2008. Environment assumptions for synthesis. In CONCUR. Springer, 147--161. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Edmund Clarke, Orna Grumberg, Somesh Jha, Yuan Lu, and Helmut Veith. 2000. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In CAV’00. Springer, 154--169. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. A. Danese, T. Ghasempouri, and G. Pravadelli. 2015. Automatic extraction of assertions from execution traces of behavioural models. In DATE’15. ACM, 67--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Niklas Eén, Alan Mishchenko, and Robert K. Brayton. 2011. Efficient implementation of property directed reachability. In FMCAD’11. FMCAD Inc., 125--134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Shigeki Hagihara, Yusuke Kitamura, Masaya Shimakawa, and Naoki Yonezaki. 2009. Extracting environmental constraints to make reactive system specifications realizable. In APSEC’09. IEEE Computer Society, 61--68. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Haifa-IBM-Laboratories. IBM Generalized Buffer. Retrieved May 2017 from http://www.research.ibm.com/haifa/projects/verification/RB_Homepage/tutorial3/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Samuel Hertz, David Sheridan, and Shobha Vasudevan. 2013. Mining hardware assertions with guidance from static analysis. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 32, 6 (2013), 952--965. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. IEEE. 2010. IEEE standard for property specification language (PSL). IEEE Std 1850-2010 (April 2010), 1--182.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. IEEE. 2013. IEEE standard for SystemVerilog -- unified hardware design, specification, and verification language. IEEE Std 1800-2012 (Feb 2013), 1--1315.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Brian Keng. 2013. Advances in Debug Automation for a Modern Verification Environment. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Brian Keng, Evean Qin, Andreas Veneris, and Bao Le. 2014. Automated debugging of missing assumptions. In Asia-Pacific DAC’14. IEEE Computer Society, 732--737.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Wenchao Li, Lili Dworkin, and Sanjit A. Seshia. 2011. Mining assumptions for synthesis. In MEMOCODE’11. IEEE, 43--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Alan Mishchenko, Niklas Een, and Robert Brayton. 2013. A toolbox for counter-example analysis and optimization. In IWLS’13. IEEE. Retrieved from https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/∼alanmi/publications/2013/iwls13_cex.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Guillaume Plassan. 2018. Conclusive Formal Verification of Clock-Domain Crossing Properties. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Guillaume Plassan, Katell Morin-Allory, and Dominique Borrione. 2017. Extraction of missing formal assumptions in under-constrained designs. In ACM-IEEE MEMOCODE’17. ACM, 94--103. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Pnueli. 1977. The temporal logic of programs. In 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society, 46--57. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. R. K. Ranjan, C. Coelho, and S. Skalberg. 2009. Beyond verification: Leveraging formal for debugging. In DAC’09. ACM, 648--651. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. University of Washington. The Daikon Invariant Detector. Retrieved May 2017 from http://plse.cs.washington.edu/daikon/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Shobha Vasudevan, David Sheridan, Sanjay Patel, David Tcheng, Bill Tuohy, and Daniel Johnson. 2010. Goldmine: Automatic assertion generation using data mining and static analysis. In DATE’10. IEEE Computer Society, 626--629. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Mining Missing Assumptions from Counter-Examples

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems
          ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems  Volume 18, Issue 1
          Special Issue on MEMOCODE 2017 and Regular Papers
          January 2019
          259 pages
          ISSN:1539-9087
          EISSN:1558-3465
          DOI:10.1145/3305158
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2019 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 25 January 2019
          • Accepted: 1 October 2018
          • Revised: 1 July 2018
          • Received: 1 December 2017
          Published in tecs Volume 18, Issue 1

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)10
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format