Constraint-based random stimuli generation for hardware verification

AI Magazine

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 13-29

  Naveh, Yehuda ^a   Rimon, Michal ^a   Jaeger, Itai ^a   Katz, Yoav ^a   Vinov, Michael ^a   Marcus, Eitan ^a   Shurek, Gil ^a  

^a IBM HAIFA RESEARCH LAB   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY; COMPUTER HARDWARE; EXPERT SYSTEMS; KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION;

CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION; HARDWARE VERIFICATION; RANDOM STIMULI GENERATION;

CONSTRAINT THEORY;

EID: 35348949049     PISSN: 07384602     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (24)

1. Adir, A.; Almog, E.; Fournier, L.; Marcus, E.; Rimon, M.; Vinov, M.; and Ziv, A. 2004. Genesys-Pro: Innovations in Test Program Generation for Functional Processor Verification. IEEE Design and Test of Computers 21(2): 84-93.
2. Adir, A.; Bin, E.; Peled, O.; and Ziv, A. 2003a. Piparazzi: A Test Program Generator for Micro-Architecture Flow Verification. In Proceedings, Eighth IEEE International High-Level Design Validation and Test Workshop, HLDVT-03, 23. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
3. Adir, A.; Emek, R.; Katz, Y.; and Koyfman, A. 2003b. DeepTrans - A Model-Based Approach to Functional Verification of Address Translation Mechanisms. In Proceedings, Fourth International Workshop on Microprocessor Test and Verification (MTV'03), 3-6. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
4. Adir, A.; Emek, R.; and Marcus, E. 2002. Adaptive Test Program Generation: Planning for the Unplanned. In Proceedings, Seventh IEEE International High-Level Design Validation and Test Workshop, HLDVT-02, 83-88. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
5. Aharon, A.; Goodman, D.; Levinger, M.; Lichtenstein, Y.; Malka, Y.; Metzger, C.; Molcho, M.; and Shurek, G. 1995. Test Program Generation for Functional Verification of PowerPC processors in IBM. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC95), 279-285. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
6. Aharoni, M.; Asaf, S.; Fournier, L.; Koyfman, A.; and Nagel, R. 2003. A Test Generation Framework for Datapath Floating-Point Verification. In Proceedings, Eighth IEEE International High-Level Design Validation and Test Workshop, HLDVT03, 17-22. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
7. Behm, M.; Ludden, J.; Lichtenstein, Y.; Rimon, M.; and Vinov, M. 2004. Industrial Experience with Test Generation Languages for Processor verification. In Proceedings of the 41st Design Automation Conference (DAC-03), 36-40. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
8. Bergeron, J. 2000. Writing Testbenches: Functional Verification of HDL Models. Dortrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
9. Bin, E.; Emek, R.; Shurek, G.; and Ziv, A. 2002. Using Constraint Satisfaction Formulations and Solution Techniques for Random Test Program Generation. IBM Systems Journal 41(3): 386-402.
10. Borning, A.; Freeman-Benson, B.; and Willson, M. 1992. Constraint Hierarchies. Lisp and Symbolic Computation 5(3): 223-270.
11. Dechter, R.; Kask, K.; Bin, E.; and Emek, R. 2002. Generating Random Solutions for Constraint Satisfaction Problems. In Proceedings, Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 15-21. Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
12. Emek, R.; Jaeger, I.; Naveh, Y.; Bergman, G.; Aloni, G.; Katz, Y.; Farkash, M.; Dozoretz, I.; and Goldin, A. 2002. X-Gen: A Random Test-Case Generator for Systems and Socs. In Proceedings, Seventh IEEE International High-Level Design Validation and Test Workshop, HLDVT-02, 145-150. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
13. Fine, S., and Ziv, A. 2003. Coverage Directed Test Generation for Functional Verification Using Bayesian Networks. In Proceedings of the 41st Design Automation Conference (DAC-03), 286-291. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
14. Freuder, E. C. 1982. A Sufficient Condition for Backtrack-Free Search. Journal of the ACM 29(1): 24-32.
15. Geller, F., and Veksler, M. 2005. Assumption-Based Pruning in Conditional CSP. In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2005), ed. P. van Beek, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 3709, 241-255. Berlin: Springer.
16. Hentenryck, P. V. 1999. The OPL Optimization Programming Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
17. Lichtenstein, Y.; Malka, Y.; and Aharon, A. 1994. Model-Based Test Generation for Processor Verification. In Proceedings, Sixth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, 83-94. Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
18. Mackworth, A. 1977. Consistency in Networks of Relations. Artificial Intelligence 8(1): 99-118.
19. Mittal, S., and Falkenhainer, B. 1989. Dynamic Constraint Satisfaction Problems. In Proceedings, Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 25-32.
20. Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
21. Nahir, A.; Ziv, A.; Emek, R.; Keidar, T.; and Ronen, N. 2006. Scheduling-Based Test-Case Generation for Verification of Multimedia SoCs. In Proceedings of the 43rd Design Automation Conference. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
22. Naveh, Y. 2004. Stochastic Solver for Constraint Satisfaction Problems with Learning of High-Level Characteristics of the Problem Topography. Paper presented at the First International Workshop on Local Search Techniques in Constraint Satisfaction, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 27 September.
23. Victor, D. W.; Ludden, J. M.; Peterson, R. D.; Nelson, B. S.; Sharp, W. K.; Hsu, J. K.; Chu, B.-L.; Behm, M. L.; Gott, R. M.; Romonosky, A. D.; and Farago, S. R. 2005. Functional Verification of the POWER5 Microprocessor and POWERS Multiprocessor Systems. IBM Journal of Research and Development 49(4/5): 541-554.
24. Wegener, I. 2000. Branching Programs and Binary Decision Diagrams: Theory and Applications. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.