Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Anubhav Gupta 0001

dblp:07/2802-1 · also Anubhav P. Gupta · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
10ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 2009
—ORCID · unresolved

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Theory of computation · 6 · 3 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 5 · 2 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 4 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Theoretical computer science
6 papers
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program verification · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Electronic design automation · 100%

Topics — the 11 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Automated reasoning and model checking
abstraction refinement
0.122005
Abstraction Refinement for Bounded Model Checking · CAV 2005
SAT-based counterexample-guided abstraction refinement · IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 2004
Automated reasoning and model checking › abstraction refinement
counterexample-guided abstraction refinement
0.122004
SAT-based counterexample-guided abstraction refinement · IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 2004
SAT Based Abstraction-Refinement Using ILP and Machine Learning Techniques · CAV 2002
Program verification
modular verification
0.112007
Automated Assumption Generation for Compositional Verification · CAV 2007
Automated reasoning and model checking
compositional verification
0.112007
Automated Assumption Generation for Compositional Verification · CAV 2007
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking
bounded model checking
0.112005
Abstraction Refinement for Bounded Model Checking · CAV 2005
Automated reasoning and model checking
model checking
0.012002
SAT Based Abstraction-Refinement Using ILP and Machine Learning Techniques · CAV 2002
Automated reasoning and model checking
image computation
0.012001
Dynamic Detection and Removal of Inactive Clauses in SAT with Application in Image Computation · DAC 2001
Automated reasoning and model checking › satisfiability
SAT solving
0.012001
Dynamic Detection and Removal of Inactive Clauses in SAT with Application in Image Computation · DAC 2001
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking
symbolic model checking
0.012000
Combining Decision Diagrams and SAT Procedures for Efficient Symbolic Model Checking · CAV 2000
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
hardware verification
0.012001
Dynamic Detection and Removal of Inactive Clauses in SAT with Application in Image Computation · DAC 2001
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test › formal verification
reachability analysis
0.012001
Dynamic Detection and Removal of Inactive Clauses in SAT with Application in Image Computation · DAC 2001

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

assumption generation · 0.1SAT solving · 0.1machine learning · 0.1gate connectivity extraction · 0.1branch-and-bound SAT · 0.10-1 integer linear programming · 0.0integer linear programming · 0.0decision diagrams · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2009 First steps towards SAT-based formal analog verification
abstract
Boolean satisfiability (SAT) based methods have traditionally been popular for formally verifying properties for digital circuits. We present a novel methodology for formulating a SPICE-type circuit simulation problem as a satisfiability problem. We start with a circuit level netlist, capture the non-linear behavior of the circuits at the transistor level via conservative approximations and transform the simulation problem into a search problem that can be exhaustively explored via a SAT solver. Thus, for DC as well as fixed time-step based transient and periodic steady state (PSS) simulation formulations, the solutions produced by the solver are formal in nature. We also present algorithms for abstraction refinement and smart interval generation to improve the computational efficiency of our proposed solution scheme. We have implemented our ideas into a tool called fSpice which is the first attempt at building a formal SPICE engine. We demonstrate the applicability of our ideas by showing experimental results using pruned versions of real designs that faced challenges during chip tape-out. Categories and Subject Descriptors I.6.5 [Simulation and Modeling]: Model Development General Terms Algorithms, Design
Saurabh K. Tiwary, Anubhav Gupta 0001, Joel R. Phillips, Claudio Pinello, Radu Zlatanovici
ICCAD2
2008 Automated assumption generation for compositional verification
Anubhav Gupta 0001, Kenneth L. McMillan, Zhaohui Fu
Formal Methods Syst. Des.1
2007 Automated Assumption Generation for Compositional Verification
Anubhav Gupta 0001, Kenneth L. McMillan, Zhaohui Fu
CAV1
2005 Abstraction Refinement for Bounded Model Checking
Anubhav Gupta 0001, Ofer Strichman
CAV1
2005 Reconsidering CEGAR: Learning Good Abstractions without Refinement
abstract
Abstraction techniques have been very successful in model checking large systems by enabling the model checker to ignore irrelevant details. Most abstraction techniques in literature are based on refinement. We introduce the notion of broken traces which capture the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of an error path in the abstract model. We formulate abstraction as learning the abstract model from samples of broken traces. Our iterative algorithm for abstraction-based model checking is not based on refinement and can generate the smallest abstract model that proves the property. We present an implementation of this algorithm for the verification of safety properties on gate-level net-lists with localization abstraction. Experimental results prove the viability of our techniques.
Anubhav Gupta 0001, Edmund M. Clarke
ICCD1
2004 SAT-based counterexample-guided abstraction refinement
abstract
We describe new techniques for model checking in the counterexample-guided abstraction-refinement framework. The abstraction phase "hides" the logic of various variables, hence considering them as inputs. This type of abstraction may lead to "spurious" counterexamples, i.e., traces that cannot be simulated on the original (concrete) machine. We check whether a counterexample is real or spurious with a satisfiability (SAT) checker. We then use a combination of 0-1 integer linear programming and machine learning techniques for refining the abstraction based on the counterexample. The process is repeated until either a real counterexample is found or the property is verified. We have implemented these techniques on top of the model checker NuSMV and the SAT solver Chaff. Experimental results prove the viability of these new techniques.
Edmund M. Clarke, Anubhav Gupta 0001, Ofer Strichman
IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst.2
2002 SAT Based Abstraction-Refinement Using ILP and Machine Learning Techniques
abstract
We describe new techniques for model checking in the counterexample guided abstraction/refinement framework. The abstraction phase ‘hides’ the logic of various variables, hence considering them as inputs. This type of abstraction may lead to ‘spurious’ counterexamples, i.e. traces that can not be simulated on the original (concrete) machine. We check whether a counterexample is real or spurious with a SAT checker. We then use a combination of Integer Linear Programming (ILP) and machine learning techniques for refining the abstraction based on the counterexample. The process is repeated until either a real counterexample is found or the property is verified. We have implemented these techniques on top of the model checker NuSMV and the SAT solver Chaff. Experimental results prove the viability of these new techniques. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Edmund M. Clarke, Anubhav Gupta 0001, James H. Kukula, Ofer Strichman
CAV2
2001 Dynamic Detection and Removal of Inactive Clauses in SAT with Application in Image Computation
abstract
In this paper, we present a new technique for the efficient dynamic detection and removal of inactive clauses, i.e. clauses that do not affect the solutions of interest of a Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) problem. The algorithm is based on the extraction of gate connectivity information during generation of the Boolean formula from the circuit, and its use in the inner loop of a branch-and-bound SAT algorithm. The motivation for this optimization is to exploit the circuit structure information, which can be used to find unobservable gates at circuit outputs under dynamic conditions. It has the potential to speed up all applications of SAT in which the SAT formula is derived from a logic circuit. In particular, we find that it has considerable impact on an image computation algorithm based on SAT. We present practical results for benchmark circuits which show that the use of this optimization consistently improves the performance for reachability analysis, in some cases enabling the prototype tool to reach more states than otherwise possible.
Aarti Gupta, Anubhav Gupta 0001, Zijiang Yang 0006, Pranav Ashar
DAC2
2000 Combining Decision Diagrams and SAT Procedures for Efficient Symbolic Model Checking
Poul Frederick Williams, Armin Biere, Edmund M. Clarke, Anubhav Gupta 0001
CAV4
2000 SAT-Based Image Computation with Application in Reachability Analysis
Aarti Gupta, Zijiang Yang 0006, Pranav Ashar, Anubhav Gupta 0001
FMCAD4