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

Mitra Purandare

dblp:38/1150 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
15ranked-venue papers
5as first author
3since 2021 · last 2026
0000-0002-9184-9514ORCID · corroborated

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

Systems, architecture and hardware · 8 · 3 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 4 · 2 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 3 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Theory of computation · 1 · 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 · 86% Hardware accelerators and domain-specific architectures · 9% Reconfigurable computing and FPGAs · 5%
Theoretical computer science
3 papers
Automated reasoning and model checking · 55% Mathematical optimization · 24% Logic in computer science · 21%

Topics — the 15 heaviest of 15, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Electronic design automation
hardware verification and test
0.332012
Computing Mutation Coverage in Interpolation-Based Model Checking · IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 2012
Proving correctness of regular expression accelerators · DAC 2012
Dos and don'ts of CTL state coverage estimation · DAC 2003
Electronic design automation › model checking
bounded model checking
0.312017
Formal Techniques for Effective Co-verification of Hardware/Software Co-designs · DAC 2017
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
hardware verification
0.312017
Formal Techniques for Effective Co-verification of Hardware/Software Co-designs · DAC 2017
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
formal verification
0.222012
Computing Mutation Coverage in Interpolation-Based Model Checking · IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 2012
Dos and don'ts of CTL state coverage estimation · DAC 2003
Electronic design automation
model checking
0.222012
Computing Mutation Coverage in Interpolation-Based Model Checking · IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 2012
Dos and don'ts of CTL state coverage estimation · DAC 2003
Hardware accelerators and domain-specific architectures › pattern matching accelerator
regular expression matching accelerator
0.112012
Proving correctness of regular expression accelerators · DAC 2012
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test › formal verification
sequential equivalence checking
0.112012
Proving correctness of regular expression accelerators · DAC 2012
Mathematical optimization › submodular optimization
coverage problem
0.112010
Coverage in interpolation-based model checking · DAC 2010
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking › symbolic model checking
interpolation-based model checking
0.112010
Coverage in interpolation-based model checking · DAC 2010
Automated reasoning and model checking
model checking
0.112010
Coverage in interpolation-based model checking · DAC 2010
Reconfigurable computing and FPGAs
FPGA accelerator
0.112017
Formal Techniques for Effective Co-verification of Hardware/Software Co-designs · DAC 2017
Logic in computer science › temporal logic › branching-time temporal logic
CTL
0.022003
Vacuum Cleaning CTL Formulae · CAV 2002
Dos and don'ts of CTL state coverage estimation · DAC 2003
Logic in computer science
temporal logic
0.022003
Vacuum Cleaning CTL Formulae · CAV 2002
Dos and don'ts of CTL state coverage estimation · DAC 2003
Software testing › test adequacy › coverage criteria › structural coverage criteria
state coverage
0.012003
Dos and don'ts of CTL state coverage estimation · DAC 2003
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking › temporal logic model checking
vacuity detection
0.012002
Vacuum Cleaning CTL Formulae · CAV 2002

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

property specification · 0.3bounded model checking · 0.3craig interpolation · 0.3netlist modeling · 0.1boolean satisfiability · 0.1CTL state coverage estimation · 0.1SAT solving · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 No Code, No Cloud: On-Device Mockup-to-Code with Lightweight Vision-Language AI
abstract
Bridging the gap between visual design and functional code remains a persistent challenge in modern UI workflows, especially for small teams and non-programmers. Existing solutions, such as Figma-to-code tools and recent vision language models (VLMs), often depend on proprietary cloud APIs or large-scale architectures, limiting offline operation, privacy, and control. We present LiteViT5, a lightweight, on-device vision language model that directly generates HTML from images of design mockups, enabling private, no-code prototyping without cloud infrastructure. Built on a compact ViT–T5 encoder–decoder framework with 235M parameters, LiteViT5 achieves competitive results on both in-distribution (WebSight) and out-of-distribution (Design2Code) benchmarks. We evaluate its performance across structure, position, color, and CLIP-based similarity metrics and report its comparable performance to models 10–30× larger such as PaliGemma-3B, LLaVA-7B, and DeepSeek-VL-7B. We further assess LiteViT5 in a user study with 24 participants assessing perceived accuracy, code quality, and editability. Our findings show that LiteViT5 supports rapid design iteration, reduces reliance on developer handoff, making it a practical, assistive tool for democratizing web interface creation. This work highlights the potential of efficient, human-centered generative AI to empower interface design beyond expert-only workflows. To support transparency and reproducibility, we release LiteViT5 as an open-source model on Hugging Face: OSTswiss/LiteViT5.
Abinas Kuganathan, Mitra Purandare, Markus Stolze
IUI2
2025 SMARE - Structure Matching and Recognition Engine for Hand-Drawn Chemical Formulas
Mitra Purandare, Tobias Rothlin, Frieder Loch, Johannes Huwer, Lars-Jochen Thoms
AIED (5)1
2021 Acceleration-as-a-µService: A Cloud-native Monte-Carlo Option Pricing Engine on CPUs, GPUs and Disaggregated FPGAs
abstract
The evolution of cloud applications into loosely-coupled microservices opens new opportunities for hardware accelerators to improve workload performance. Existing accelerator techniques for cloud sacrifice the consolidation benefits of microservices. This paper presents CloudiFi, a framework to deploy and compare accelerators as a cloud service. We evaluate our framework in the context of a financial workload and present early results indicating up to 485 x gains in microservice response time.
Dionysios Diamantopoulos, Raphael Polig, Burkhard Ringlein, Mitra Purandare, Beat Weiss, Christoph Hagleitner, Mark A. Lantz, François Abel
CLOUD4
2020 Agile Autotuning of a Transprecision Tensor Accelerator Overlay for TVM Compiler Stack
abstract
Specialized accelerators for tensor-operations, such as blocked-matrix operations and multi-dimensional convolutions, have emerged as powerful architecture choices for high-performance Deep-Learning computing. The rapid development of frameworks, models, and precision options challenges the adaptability of such tensor-accelerators since the adaptation to new requirements incurs significant engineering costs. Programmable tensor accelerators offer a promising alternative by allowing reconfiguration of a virtual architecture that overlays on top of the physical FPGA configurable fabric. We propose an overlay (τ-VTA) and an optimization method guided by agile-inspired auto-tuning techniques. We achieve higher performance of up to 2.5x and faster convergence of up to 8.1x.
Dionysios Diamantopoulos, Burkhard Ringlein, Mitra Purandare, Gagandeep Singh 0002, Christoph Hagleitner
FPL3
2020 FPGA Accelerated Analysis of Boolean Gene Regulatory Networks
abstract
Boolean models are a powerful abstraction for qualitative modeling of gene regulatory networks. With the recent availability of advanced high-throughput technologies, Boolean models have increasingly grown in size and complexity, posing a challenge for existing software simulation tools that have not scaled at the same speed. Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) are powerful reconfigurable integrated circuits that can offer massive performance improvements. Due to their highly parallel nature, FPGAs are well suited to simulate complex molecular networks. We present here a new simulation framework for Boolean models, which first converts the model to Verilog, a standardized hardware description language, and then connects it to an execution core that runs on an FPGA coherently attached to a POWER8 processor. We report an order of magnitude speedup over a multi-threaded software simulation tool running on the same processor on a selection of Boolean models. Analysis on a T-cell large granular lymphocyte leukemia (T-LGL) demonstrates that our framework achieves consistent performance improvements resulting in new biological insights. In addition, we show that our solution allows to perform attractor detection at an unprecedented speed, exhibiting a speedup ranging from one to three orders of magnitude compared to alternative software solutions.
Matteo Manica, Raphael Polig, Mitra Purandare, Roland Mathis, Christoph Hagleitner, María Rodríguez Martínez
IEEE ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform.3
2017 Formal Techniques for Effective Co-verification of Hardware/Software Co-designs
abstract
Verification is indispensable for building reliable of hardware/software co-designs. However, the scope of formal methods in this domain is limited. This is attributed to the lack of unified property specification languages, the semantic gap between hardware and software components, and the lack of verifiers that support both C and Verilog/VHDL. To address these limitations, we present an approach that uses a bounded co-verification tool, HW-CBMC, for formally validating hardware/software co-designs written in Verilog and C. Properties are expressed in C enriched with special-purpose primitives that capture temporal correlation between hardware and software events. We present an industrial case-study, proving bounded safety properties as well as discovering critical co-design bugs on a large and complex text analytics FPGA accelerator from IBM®.
Rajdeep Mukherjee, Mitra Purandare, Raphael Polig, Daniel Kroening
DAC2
2017 Accelerated analysis of Boolean gene regulatory networks
abstract
In Systems Biology, Boolean models are gaining popularity in modeling and analysis of qualitative dynamics of gene regulatory mechanisms. With the development of advanced high-throughput technologies, the availability of experimental data on gene-gene, gene-protein interactions is ever increasing. Consequently, modern Boolean models are increasing in size and complexity. Software simulation of Boolean models does not scale for such state-of-the-art complex Boolean models. We propose Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) for emulation of Boolean models, exploiting the highly parallel nature of FPGAs. Our emulation framework consists of converting a Boolean model to Verilog, connecting it to an execution core, which runs on an FPGA coherently attached to a POWER8 processor. We report an order of magnitude speed up over a multi-threaded software simulation tool running on the same processor.
Mitra Purandare, Raphael Polig, Christoph Hagleitner
FPL1
2012 Proving correctness of regular expression accelerators
abstract
A popular technique in regular expression matching accelerators is to decompose a regular expression and communicate through instructions executed by a post-processor. We present a complete verification method that leverages the success of sequential equivalence checking (SEC) to proving correctness of the technique. The original regular expression and the system of decomposed regular expressions are modeled as net-lists and their equivalence is proved using SEC. SEC proves correct handling of 840 complex patterns from the Emerging Threats open rule set in 50 hours, eliminating altogether informal simulation and testing.
Mitra Purandare, Kubilay Atasu, Christoph Hagleitner
DAC1
2012 Computing Mutation Coverage in Interpolation-Based Model Checking
abstract
Coverage is a means to quantify the quality of a system specification, and is frequently applied to assess progress in system validation. Coverage is a standard measure in testing, but is very difficult to compute in the context of formal verification. We present efficient algorithms for identifying those parts of the system that are covered by a given property. Our algorithm is integrated into state-of-the-art Boolean satisfiability problem-based model checking using Craig interpolation. The key insight into our algorithm is the re-use of previously computed inductive invariants and counterexamples. This re-use permits a a rapid completion of the vast majority of tests, and enables the computation of a coverage measure with 96% accuracy with only 5× the runtime of the model checker.
Hana Chockler, Daniel Kroening, Mitra Purandare
IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst.3
2010 Coverage in interpolation-based model checking
abstract
Coverage is a means to quantify the quality of a system specification, and is frequently applied to assess progress in system validation. Coverage is a standard measure in testing, but is very difficult to compute in the context of formal verification. We present efficient algorithms for identifying those parts of the system that are covered by a given property. Our algorithm is integrated into state-of-the-art SAT-based Model Checking using Craig interpolation. The key insight of our algorithm is to re-use previously computed inductive invariants and counterexamples. This re-use permits a quick conclusion of the vast majority of tests, and enables the computation of a coverage measure with 96% accuracy with only 5x the runtime of the Model Checker.
Hana Chockler, Daniel Kroening, Mitra Purandare
DAC3
2010 Interpolant Strength
Vijay Victor D'Silva, Daniel Kroening, Mitra Purandare, Georg Weissenbacher
VMCAI3
2009 Strengthening properties using abstraction refinement
abstract
Model checking is an automated formal method for verifying whether a finite-state system satisfies a user-supplied specification. The usefulness of the verification result depends on how well the specification distinguishes intended from non-intended system behavior. Vacuity is a notion that helps formalize this distinction in order to improve the user's understanding of why a property is satisfied. The goal of this paper is to expose vacuity in a property in a way that increases our knowledge of the design. Our approach, based on abstraction refinement, computes a maximal set of atomic subformula occurrences that can be strengthened without compromising satisfaction. The result is a shorter and stronger and thus, generally, more valuable property. We quantify the benefits of our technique on a substantial set of circuit benchmarks.
Mitra Purandare, Thomas Wahl, Daniel Kroening
DATE1
2008 Approximation Refinement for Interpolation-Based Model Checking
Vijay Victor D'Silva, Mitra Purandare, Daniel Kroening
VMCAI2
2003 Dos and don'ts of CTL state coverage estimation
abstract
Coverage estimation for model checking quantifies the completeness of a set of properties. We present an improved version of the algorithm of Hoskote et al. [7] that applies to a larger subset of CTL; we prove properties of the algorithm and apply it to three case studies. From these case studies we derive recommendations for an effective use of coverage estimation.
Nikhil Jayakumar, Mitra Purandare, Fabio Somenzi
DAC2
2002 Vacuum Cleaning CTL Formulae
Mitra Purandare, Fabio Somenzi
CAV1