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

Eli Singerman

dblp:83/6687 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
15ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 9Theory of computation · 9Systems, 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
4 papers
Electronic design automation · 75% Integrated circuit design · 16% Processor architecture and microarchitecture · 9%
Theoretical computer science
4 papers
Automated reasoning and model checking · 69% Logic in computer science · 31%

Topics — the 12 heaviest of 12, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Electronic design automation
hardware verification and test
0.322014
Validation of SoC Firmware-Hardware Flows: Challenges and Solution Directions · DAC 2014
Transaction based pre-to-post silicon validation · DAC 2011
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test › design validation
post-silicon validation
0.112011
Transaction based pre-to-post silicon validation · DAC 2011
Integrated circuit design
system-on-chip
0.122014
Validation of SoC Firmware-Hardware Flows: Challenges and Solution Directions · DAC 2014
Transaction based pre-to-post silicon validation · DAC 2011
Processor architecture and microarchitecture
microprogramming
0.112005
Formal Verification of Backward Compatibility of Microcode · CAV 2005
Automated reasoning and model checking
hardware verification
0.112005
Formal Verification of Backward Compatibility of Microcode · CAV 2005
Automated reasoning and model checking
model checking
0.012004
GSTE Is Partitioned Model Checking · CAV 2004
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking
symbolic model checking
0.012004
GSTE Is Partitioned Model Checking · CAV 2004
Logic in computer science
modal logic
0.011997
Computation Paths Logic: An Expressive, yet Elementary, Process Logic (abridged version) · ICALP 1997
Logic in computer science › modal logic › dynamic logic
process logic
0.011997
Computation Paths Logic: An Expressive, yet Elementary, Process Logic (abridged version) · ICALP 1997
Logic in computer science › modal logic
dynamic logic
0.011996
More on Nonregular PDL: Finite Models and Fibonacci-Like Programs · Inf. Comput. 1996
Logic in computer science › modal logic › dynamic logic
propositional dynamic logic
0.011996
More on Nonregular PDL: Finite Models and Fibonacci-Like Programs · Inf. Comput. 1996
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
hardware verification
0.012004
GSTE Is Partitioned Model Checking · CAV 2004

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

transaction-based validation · 0.1formal verification · 0.1partitioned model checking · 0.1GSTE · 0.1expressiveness analysis · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 Validation of SoC Firmware-Hardware Flows: Challenges and Solution Directions
abstract
In SoC, key infrastructure/backbone flows are distributed across many IPs and involve tight firmware and hardware interaction. Examples include resets, power management, security, and more. Traditional hardware validation techniques are no-longer adequate for such flows, due to the short time-to-market requirements, in particular, for mobile devices. In this paper, we articulate the challenges and discuss a few solution directions that are being pursued in this space at Intel.
Yael Abarbanel, Eli Singerman, Moshe Y. Vardi
DAC2
2014 From visual to logical formalisms for SoC validation
abstract
In current SoCs, key infrastructure capabilities are distributed across many components and involve tight software, firmware, and hardware interaction. Examples include resets, power management, security, and more. The architectural complexity of these features often results in specification errors that when found quite late in the product life cycle are very costly to fix. This means that we have to find ways to analyze the architectural specification and not only the implementation. To address these issues, we describe a framework called iPave that supports the following capabilities: (1) A common, formal system-level specification serving as a contract between different design teams; (2) Specification analysis with focus on cross-component assumptions and dependencies; and (3) A method to reuse the specification as a global checker to assure that the implementation is compliant with the specification across all validation platforms (simulation, emulation, silicon). At the front end of this framework we have an intuitive visual formalism, iFlow, which makes it easy for architects to specify system-level protocols, while at the back end we have a new logical formalism, called Logic Sequence Diagrams (LSDs), which enables formal compliance checking across different validation platforms.
Ranan Fraer, Doron Keren, Zurab Khasidashvili, Alexander Novakovsky, Avi Puder, Eli Singerman, Eran Talmor, Moshe Y. Vardi, Jin Yang 0006
MEMOCODE6
2011 Transaction based pre-to-post silicon validation
abstract
Intel's move towards the SoC paradigm comes with a compelling requirement for shorter time-to-market. To address that, we need to make both pre and post silicon validation more efficient. In this paper we focus on post-si functional validation, which consumes an increasing share of the overall product development timeline. We present a coherent Pre-to-Post workflow that aims to improve productivity of post-si validation and debug by proper investment in design for debug/validation (DFx) and in test development during pre-si stages. In this workflow, a central transactions and events definition repository serves as the backbone across pre-Si and post-Si activities. The transaction spec guides DFx work in pre-Si as well as test suite preparation in order to make the post-Si validation work productive. Usage of micro-architectural events and transactions raises the level of abstraction, and can help in getting better productivy, manageability, reusability, and less error prone Post-Si validation work.
Eli Singerman, Yael Abarbanel, Sean Baartmans
DAC1
2008 Efficient Symbolic Simulation of Low Level Software
abstract
Symbolic execution has long been a staple technique for formal hardware verification. Its application to software requires methods for dealing with software specific complexities. In this paper we elaborate methods for the efficient symbolic simulation of embedded software; some methods are new, others are improvements of existing methods. Using these techniques we have been able to symbolically execute real life microcode of thousands of lines, allowing formal methods to become an integral part of microcode validation in Intel Corporation.
Tamarah Arons, Elad Elster, Shlomit Ozer, Jonathan Shalev, Eli Singerman
DATE5
2008 A Temporal Language for SystemC
abstract
We describe a general approach for defining new temporal specification languages, and adopting existing languages, for SystemC. We define the concept of "underlying trace" describing the execution of a SystemC model, and then define a set of important primitive assertions about the states in the trace. Our framework not only provides additional expressive power for making atomic assertions, but also provides very fine control over the temporal resolution of the language. Using the primitives defined here as clock expression allows sampling at different levels, from transaction-level to the level of individual statements. The advantage of our approach is that it defines important SystemC properties that have been overlooked previously, and also provides a uniform mechanism for specifying the sampling rate of temporal languages.
Deian Tabakov, Gila Kamhi, Moshe Y. Vardi, Eli Singerman
FMCAD4
2007 Case study: Integrating FV and DV in the Verification of the Intel CoreTM 2 Duo Microprocessor
abstract
The ever-growing complexity of Intel® CPUs, together with shortened time-to-market requirements, poses significant challenges for pre-silicon logic verification. To address the increasing verification gap, major improvements to verification practices are required. In Merom, the Intel® Core^{TM} 2 Duo microprocessor, we integrated Formal Verification (FV) with Dynamic Verification (DV) such that FV was also practiced by non-FV experts and replaced some traditional, simulation-based verification activities. This led to both higher productivity and better quality compared to previous projects. In this paper we report on the integration we used, including two examples, results, and future directions.
Alon Flaisher, Alon Gluska, Eli Singerman
FMCAD3
2007 GSTE is partitioned model checking
Roberto Sebastiani, Eli Singerman, Stefano Tonetta, Moshe Y. Vardi
Formal Methods Syst. Des.2
2005 Formal Verification of Backward Compatibility of Microcode
Tamarah Arons, Elad Elster, Limor Fix, Sela Mador-Haim, Michael Mishaeli, Jonathan Shalev, Eli Singerman, Andreas Tiemeyer, Moshe Y. Vardi, Lenore D. Zuck
CAV7
2004 GSTE Is Partitioned Model Checking
Roberto Sebastiani, Eli Singerman, Stefano Tonetta, Moshe Y. Vardi
CAV2
2002 The ForSpec Temporal Logic: A New Temporal Property-Specification Language
Roy Armoni, Limor Fix, Alon Flaisher, Rob Gerth, Boris Ginsburg, Tomer Kanza, Avner Landver, Sela Mador-Haim, Eli Singerman, Andreas Tiemeyer, Moshe Y. Vardi, Yael Zbar
TACAS9
1999 On Proving Safety Properties by Integrating Static Analysis, Theorem Proving and Abstraction
Vlad Rusu, Eli Singerman
TACAS2
1999 Computation Paths Logic: An Expressive, yet Elementary, Process Logic
David Harel, Eli Singerman
Ann. Pure Appl. Log.2
1998 Translation Validation
Amir Pnueli, Michael Siegel, Eli Singerman
TACAS3
1997 Computation Paths Logic: An Expressive, yet Elementary, Process Logic (abridged version)
David Harel, Eli Singerman
ICALP2
1996 More on Nonregular PDL: Finite Models and Fibonacci-Like Programs
David Harel, Eli Singerman
Inf. Comput.2