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

Gianluca Rigano

dblp:385/3388 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 1 · 1 since 2021

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
1 paper
Electronic design automation · 83% Integrated circuit design · 8% Processor architecture and microarchitecture · 8%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test › formal verification
equivalence checking
0.812024
A Case Study on Formal Equivalence Verification Between a C/C++ Model and Its RTL Design · FM (2) 2024
Electronic design automation
hardware verification and test
0.812024
A Case Study on Formal Equivalence Verification Between a C/C++ Model and Its RTL Design · FM (2) 2024
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test › functional verification
RTL verification
0.812024
A Case Study on Formal Equivalence Verification Between a C/C++ Model and Its RTL Design · FM (2) 2024
Processor architecture and microarchitecture › microprocessor design › processor core design
datapath design
0.212024
A Case Study on Formal Equivalence Verification Between a C/C++ Model and Its RTL Design · FM (2) 2024
Integrated circuit design
digital circuit design
0.212024
A Case Study on Formal Equivalence Verification Between a C/C++ Model and Its RTL Design · FM (2) 2024

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

universal verification methodology · 0.8formal equivalence verification · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 A Case Study on Formal Equivalence Verification Between a C/C++ Model and Its RTL Design
abstract
Abstract In the field of communication system products, most datapath Digital Signal Processing algorithms are initially developed at a high-level in MATLAB® or C/C++. Subsequently, design engineers use these models as a reference for implementing Register Transfer Level designs. The conventional approach to verify their equivalence involves extensive Universal Verification Methodology dynamic simulations, which can last for months and require significant verification efforts. However, some elusive errors might still occur because it is infeasible to explore all input combinations with this method. On the other hand, Formal Equivalence Verification aims to verify that a Register Transfer Level design is functionally equivalent to the reference high-level C/C++ model across all possible legal states. With recent advancements in formal solver technology, Formal Equivalence Verification provides a distinct benefit by using mathematical methods to ensure that the Register Transfer Level (timed) matches the original high-level C/C++ model (untimed). This drastically reduces the verification time and ensures the exhaustive coverage of the design state space. This paper presents an in-depth exploration of complex Finite State Machine with datapath verification, specifically focusing on Multiplier-Accumulator, Tone Generator, and Automatic Gain Control, by employing the formal equivalence methodology. Although these signal processing blocks were previously verified throughout Universal Verification Methodology dynamic simulations, Formal Equivalence Verification was able to identify hard-to-find bugs in just a few weeks by utilizing the new workflow, thereby streamlining the verification process.
Gaetano Raia, Gianluca Rigano, David Vincenzoni, Maurizio Martina
FM (2)2