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

Michael L. Behm

dblp:78/1570 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
coverage analysis
0.312017
Template Aware Coverage: Taking Coverage Analysis to the Next Level · DAC 2017
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test › coverage-driven verification
coverage closure
0.312017
Template Aware Coverage: Taking Coverage Analysis to the Next Level · DAC 2017
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
hardware verification
0.312017
Template Aware Coverage: Taking Coverage Analysis to the Next Level · DAC 2017
Electronic design automation
hardware verification and test
0.222014
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
0.112014
Coverage Learned Targeted Validation for Incremental HW Changes · DAC 2014
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
processor verification
0.012004
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 Template Aware Coverage: Taking Coverage Analysis to the Next Level
abstract
Understanding 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
DAC5
2014 Coverage Learned Targeted Validation for Incremental HW Changes
abstract
This 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
DAC3
2004 Industrial experience with test generation languages for processor verification
abstract
We 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
DAC1