Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Michael L. Behm
dblp:78/1570
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Systems, architecture and hardware · 3 · 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.
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
3 papers |
Electronic design automation · 100% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
coverage analysis |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Template Aware Coverage: Taking Coverage Analysis to the Next Level · DAC 2017 |
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test › coverage-driven verification
coverage closure |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Template Aware Coverage: Taking Coverage Analysis to the Next Level · DAC 2017 |
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
hardware verification |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Template Aware Coverage: Taking Coverage Analysis to the Next Level · DAC 2017 |
Electronic design automation
hardware verification and test |
0.2 | 2 | 2014 | Coverage Learned Targeted Validation for Incremental HW Changes · DAC 2014 Industrial experience with test generation languages for processor verification · DAC 2004 |
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
coverage-driven verification |
0.1 | 1 | 2014 | Coverage Learned Targeted Validation for Incremental HW Changes · DAC 2014 |
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
processor verification |
0.0 | 1 | 2004 | Industrial experience with test generation languages for processor verification · DAC 2004 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
machine learning · 0.2coverage learning · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | Template Aware Coverage: Taking Coverage Analysis to the Next LevelabstractUnderstanding the relationship between coverage and test-templates (a generic term we use to describe the inputs for the random stimuli generator) is an important layer in understanding the state and progress of the verification process. Today, this is extremely hard to achieve and is based on expert knowledge. Template Aware Coverage (TAC) is a novel approach to meeting this challenge. Based on collecting statistics of the relations between coverage and test-templates, TAC maintains these statistics in efficient data structures. It also introduces analytics means to provide useful information based on this data. Template Aware Coverage is currently being used in the verification of a high-end processor systems, where it significantly helps hitting hard-to-hit coverage events as well as never hit events. Raviv Gal, Einat Kermany, Bilal Saleh, Avi Ziv, Michael L. Behm, Bryan G. Hickerson |
DAC | 5 |
| 2014 | Coverage Learned Targeted Validation for Incremental HW ChangesabstractThis paper addresses the challenges of minimizing the time and resources required to validate the changes between two Hardware (HW) model iterations of the same design. It introduces CLTV (Coverage Learned Targeted Validation), an automatic framework which learns during the verification process of the HW and uses the learned information to target the areas of the design that are affected by the incremental HW model iterations. Monica Farkash, Bryan G. Hickerson, Michael L. Behm |
DAC | 3 |
| 2004 | Industrial experience with test generation languages for processor verificationabstractWe report on our experience with a new test generation language for processor verification. The verification of two superscalar multiprocessors is described and we show the ease of expressing complex verification tasks. The cost and benefit are demonstrated: training takes up to six months; the simulation time required for a desired level of coverage has decreased by a factor of twenty; the number of escape bugs has been reduced. Michael L. Behm, John M. Ludden, Yossi Lichtenstein, Michal Rimon, Michael Vinov |
DAC | 1 |