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.

Ilan Beer

dblp:61/594 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
13ranked-venue papers
9as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · none

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

Theory of computation · 11 · 8 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 9 · 6 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 2 · 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.

Theoretical computer science
8 papers
Automated reasoning and model checking · 78% Logic in computer science · 22%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
2 papers
Electronic design automation · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Software testing · 100%

Topics — the 13 heaviest of 13, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Automated reasoning and model checking
causality-based explanation
0.112009
Explaining Counterexamples Using Causality · CAV 2009
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking
counterexample explanation
0.112009
Explaining Counterexamples Using Causality · CAV 2009
Logic in computer science
temporal logic
0.132001
The Temporal Logic Sugar · CAV 2001
On-the-Fly Model Checking of RCTL Formulas · CAV 1998
Efficient Detection of Vacuity in ACTL Formulaas · CAV 1997
Automated reasoning and model checking
model checking
0.141998
On-the-Fly Model Checking of RCTL Formulas · CAV 1998
Efficient Detection of Vacuity in ACTL Formulaas · CAV 1997
RuleBase: Model Checking at IBM · CAV 1997
Logic in computer science › formal specification
specification language
0.012001
The Temporal Logic Sugar · CAV 2001
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking
symbolic model checking
0.021997
RuleBase: Model Checking at IBM · CAV 1997
Efficient Model Checking by Automated Ordering of Transition Relation Partitions · CAV 1994
Software testing › test oracle
test oracle generation
0.012000
FoCs: Automatic Generation of Simulation Checkers from Formal Specifications · CAV 2000
Automated reasoning and model checking
runtime verification
0.012000
FoCs: Automatic Generation of Simulation Checkers from Formal Specifications · CAV 2000
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking › explicit-state model checking
on-the-fly model checking
0.011998
On-the-Fly Model Checking of RCTL Formulas · CAV 1998
Electronic design automation
hardware verification and test
0.021996
RuleBase: An Industry-Oriented Formal Verification Tool · DAC 1996
Methodology and System for Practical Formal Verification of Reactive Hardware · CAV 1994
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking › temporal logic model checking
vacuity detection
0.011997
Efficient Detection of Vacuity in ACTL Formulaas · CAV 1997
Electronic design automation › hardware verification and test
formal verification
0.011996
RuleBase: An Industry-Oriented Formal Verification Tool · DAC 1996
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking
state space reduction
0.011994
Efficient Model Checking by Automated Ordering of Transition Relation Partitions · CAV 1994

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

causality analysis · 0.1formal specification · 0.1theorem proving · 0.0transition relation partitioning · 0.0automated ordering · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 Facilitating timing debug by logic path correspondence
abstract
Synthesis tools for high-performance VLSI designs employ aggressive logic optimization techniques in order to meet physical requirements such as area and cycle time. During these optimizations, the original structure of the design, which is usually written in a hardware description language (HDL), is lost. It is difficult, and often impossible, to relate signals after synthesis to the original signals in the HDL code. Some signals only lose their names while for others there are no equivalent counterparts in the design after synthesis. Debugging timing problems is based on timing reports which are usually represented in terms of the post-synthesis design. Hence, it is difficult to relate critical paths in the timing reports to the relevant paths in the HDL code when a logic fix is needed. In this paper, we propose a different approach for dealing with the correspondence problem: instead of trying to relate signals we relate paths. Given a critical path in a post-synthesis representation, our method is able to find all corresponding paths in the pre-synthesis (HDL) representation. As a result, locating the parts in the HDL which are relevant to the given timing problem becomes trivial. A novel Sat-based algorithm for dealing with the path-correspondence problem is described. Experimental results on various industrial high-end processor designs show the effectiveness of our algorithm in substantially reducing the amount of paths in the HDL which one will have to consider when debugging a given critical path.
Oshri Adler, Eli Arbel, Ilia Averbouch, Ilan Beer, Inna Grijnevitch
DATE4
2012 Explaining counterexamples using causality
Ilan Beer, Shoham Ben-David, Hana Chockler, Avigail Orni, Richard J. Trefler
Formal Methods Syst. Des.1
2009 Explaining Counterexamples Using Causality
Ilan Beer, Shoham Ben-David, Hana Chockler, Avigail Orni, Richard J. Trefler
CAV1
2001 The Temporal Logic Sugar
Ilan Beer, Shoham Ben-David, Cindy Eisner, Dana Fisman, Anna Gringauze, Yoav Rodeh
CAV1
2001 On the Effective Deployment of Functional Formal Verification
Yael Abarbanel-Vinov, Neta Aizenbud-Reshef, Ilan Beer, Cindy Eisner, Daniel Geist, Tamir Heyman, Iris Reuveni, Eran Rippel, Irit Shitsevalov, Yaron Wolfsthal, Tali Yatzkar-Haham
Formal Methods Syst. Des.3
2001 Efficient Detection of Vacuity in Temporal Model Checking
Ilan Beer, Shoham Ben-David, Cindy Eisner, Yoav Rodeh
Formal Methods Syst. Des.1
2000 FoCs: Automatic Generation of Simulation Checkers from Formal Specifications
Yael Abarbanel, Ilan Beer, Leonid Gluhovsky, Sharon Barner, Yaron Wolfsthal
CAV2
1998 On-the-Fly Model Checking of RCTL Formulas
Ilan Beer, Shoham Ben-David, Avner Landver
CAV1
1997 RuleBase: Model Checking at IBM
Ilan Beer, Shoham Ben-David, Cindy Eisner, Daniel Geist, Leonid Gluhovsky, Tamir Heyman, Avner Landver, P. Paanah, Yoav Rodeh, G. Ronin, Yaron Wolfsthal
CAV1
1997 Efficient Detection of Vacuity in ACTL Formulaas
Ilan Beer, Shoham Ben-David, Cindy Eisner, Yoav Rodeh
CAV1
1996 RuleBase: An Industry-Oriented Formal Verification Tool
abstract
RuleBase is a formal verification tool, developed by the IBM Haifa Research Laboratory. It is the result of three years of experience in practical formal verification of hardware which, we believe, has been a key factor in bringing the tool to its current level of maturity. We present the tool, including several unique features, and summarize our usage experience.
Ilan Beer, Shoham Ben-David, Cindy Eisner, Avner Landver
DAC1
1994 Methodology and System for Practical Formal Verification of Reactive Hardware
Ilan Beer, Shoham Ben-David, Daniel Geist, Raanan Gewirtzman, Michael Yoeli
CAV1
1994 Efficient Model Checking by Automated Ordering of Transition Relation Partitions
Daniel Geist, Ilan Beer
CAV2