Results 1 -
3 of
3
A Survey of Techniques for Formal Verification of Combinational Circuits
, 1997
"... With the increase in the complexity of present day systems, proving the correctness of a design has become a major concern. Simulation based methodologies are generally inadequate to validate the correctness of a design with a reasonable confidence. More and more designers are moving towards formal ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 5 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
With the increase in the complexity of present day systems, proving the correctness of a design has become a major concern. Simulation based methodologies are generally inadequate to validate the correctness of a design with a reasonable confidence. More and more designers are moving towards formal methods to guarantee the correctness of their designs. In this paper we survey some state-of-the-art techniques used to perform automatic verification of combinational circuits. We classify the current approaches for combinational verification into two categories: functional and structural. The functional methods consist of representing a circuit as a canonical decision diagram. Two circuits are equivalent if and only if their decision diagrams are equal. The structural methods consist of identifying related nodes in the circuit and using them to simplify the problem of verification. We briefly describe some of the methods in both the categories and discuss their merits and drawbacks.
COMPARING HOL AND MDG: A CASE STUDY ON THE VERIFICATION OF AN ATM SWITCH FABRIC
- NORDIC JOURNAL OF COMPUTING
, 1998
"... Interactive formal proof and automated verification based on decision graphs are two contrasting formal hardware verification techniques. In this paper, we compare these two approaches. In particular, we consider HOL and MDG. The former is an interactive theorem-proving system based on higher-order ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 3 (2 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Interactive formal proof and automated verification based on decision graphs are two contrasting formal hardware verification techniques. In this paper, we compare these two approaches. In particular, we consider HOL and MDG. The former is an interactive theorem-proving system based on higher-order logic, while the latter is an automatic system based on Multiway Decision Graphs. As the basis for our comparison we have used both systems to independently verify a fabricated ATM communications chip, the Fairisle 4 by 4 switch fabric.
Comparing HOL, MDG and VIS: A Case Study on the Verification of an ATM Switch Fabric
, 1999
"... There exist a wide range of hardware verification tools, some based on interactive theorem proving and other more automated tools based on decision diagrams. In this paper, we compare three different verification systems covering the spectrum of today's verification technology. In particular, we con ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
There exist a wide range of hardware verification tools, some based on interactive theorem proving and other more automated tools based on decision diagrams. In this paper, we compare three different verification systems covering the spectrum of today's verification technology. In particular, we consider HOL, MDG and VIS. HOL is an interactive theorem proving system based on higher-order logic. VIS is an automatic system based on ROBDDs and integrating verification with simulation and synthesis. The MDG system is an intermediate approach based on Multiway Decision Graphs providing automation while accommodating abstract data sorts, uninterpreted functions and rewriting. As the basis for our comparison we used all three systems to independently model and verify a fabricated ATM communications chip: the Fairisle 4 4 switch fabric.

