Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference 1999
DOI: 10.1145/309847.309936
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Coverage estimation for symbolic model checking

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
30
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 82 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Noteworthy exceptions include a state-space-based metric, 21 an observability-based code coverage metric, 22,24 and an observed-variable-based metric. 25 The state-space-based metric 22 has require-ments to ensure that a transition tour of an abstract state machine uncovers all output and transition errors in the implementation. The requirements specify what part of the state must be visible to the reference model.…”
Section: Observabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Noteworthy exceptions include a state-space-based metric, 21 an observability-based code coverage metric, 22,24 and an observed-variable-based metric. 25 The state-space-based metric 22 has require-ments to ensure that a transition tour of an abstract state machine uncovers all output and transition errors in the implementation. The requirements specify what part of the state must be visible to the reference model.…”
Section: Observabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In all three examples, evidence shows that a metric integrating some notion of observability is a superior measure of validation quality. 22,24,25 Metrics applied to specifications Following the convention in software testing literature, we call metrics defined on the description of a systems' implementation modelbased metrics. Such metrics are weak at detecting missing functionality.…”
Section: Observabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These results are obtained from VIS model checker engine [13]. The state coverage metric based on Hoskote method [4] already exists in this model checker. Also we implemented signal coverage method on top of VIS based on our previous article on signal coverage methodology [9].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…State coverage method was proposed by Hoskote et al [4] in 1998 as a metric for coverage estimation in formal verification. Informally, a state will be covered by a verified property with respect to an observed signal, if changing the value of the signal in that state causes the property to fail.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, how many properties should the verification engineer define to completely check the implementation? Few works, based on symbolic methods, are related to the properties incompleteness topic [10][11] [12], but their applicability is limited by the state explosion problem. To solve the problem, we have developed a tool, called property coverage checker (PCC), that evaluate the completeness of properties by mixing functional and formal verification [13].…”
Section: Rtl Generation: Levelmentioning
confidence: 99%