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

C. Norris Ip

dblp:47/2168 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
9ranked-venue papers
7as first author
0since 2021 · last 2005
—ORCID · none

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

Theory of computation · 5 · 4 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 4 · 3 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 4 · 2 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
2 papers
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Distributed systems · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Program verification · 100%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking › symbolic model checking
SAT-based model checking
0.112005
Symmetry Reduction in SAT-Based Model Checking · CAV 2005
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking › state space reduction
symmetry reduction
0.112005
Symmetry Reduction in SAT-Based Model Checking · CAV 2005
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking
state space reduction
0.022005
Symmetry Reduction in SAT-Based Model Checking · CAV 2005
State Reduction Using Reversible Rules · DAC 1996
Automated reasoning and model checking
model checking
0.022005
Symmetry Reduction in SAT-Based Model Checking · CAV 2005
State Reduction Using Reversible Rules · DAC 1996
Program verification
model checking
0.011996
Verifying Systems with Replicated Components in Murphi · CAV 1996
Distributed systems
fault tolerance
0.011996
Verifying Systems with Replicated Components in Murphi · CAV 1996
Distributed systems › replication
replicated system
0.011996
Verifying Systems with Replicated Components in Murphi · CAV 1996
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking › temporal logic model checking
CTL model checking
0.011996
State Reduction Using Reversible Rules · DAC 1996

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

symmetry reduction · 0.1SAT solving · 0.1state graph abstraction · 0.0murphi · 0.0model checking · 0.0BDD · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2005 Symmetry Reduction in SAT-Based Model Checking
Daijue Tang, Sharad Malik, Aarti Gupta, C. Norris Ip
CAV4
2003 Qualifying Precision of Abstract SystemC Models Using the SystemC Verification Standard
abstract
The increasing complexity of Systems on Chip (SoC) has introduced the need for abstract executable specifications (models) covering both hardware and embedded software. The new capabilities of SystemC 2.0, such as those added for transaction-based communication and test-bench Specification and monitoring, facilitate this SoC modeling. However, an obstacle to the adoption of abstract modeling as standard design practice is the lack of well establishes methodologies for the assessment of model precision. We describe such a methodology based on the SystemC Verification Standard implemented by Cadence's TestBuilder-SC. This methodology enables comparison of high-level (transaction level) SoC models in SystemC against implementation RTL models. An application of the methodology is presented, based on the AMBA Class Library (ACL) for SystemC being developed by ARM in collaboration with EDA partners. The key elements of the methodology are: 1. A completely reusable testbench that can be used for simulation and verification of the design at both high-level (transaction level) of abstraction and RTL implementation level. 2. A single database format is used so that data collected from simulations at each level can easily be processed and compared. We present an example of effective validation of ARM PrimeXsys-platform IP components against their RTL implementation.
Franco Carbognani, Christopher K. Lennard, C. Norris Ip, Allan Cochrane, Paul Bates
DATE3
2000 Simulation Coverage Enhancement Using Test Stimulus Transformations
abstract
This paper introduces the concept of abstract state exploration histories to a simulation environment, and presents a test stimulus transformation (TST) technique to improve simulation coverage. State exploration histories are adapted from reachability analysis in Formal Verification. In TST, an aggressively abstracted state exploration history is maintained during simulation. While this history is being collected, test stimuli from an existing test bench are transformed on-the-fly to explore new scenarios that are not in the history. The results showed that 3-fold increase in transition coverage for a cache coherence controller, and 10 times faster coverage convergence for a MPEG2 decoder can be achieved.
C. Norris Ip
ICCAD1
1999 Verifying Systems with Replicated Components in Mur[b.phiv]
C. Norris Ip, David L. Dill
Formal Methods Syst. Des.1
1998 Generalized Reversible Rules
C. Norris Ip
FMCAD1
1996 Verifying Systems with Replicated Components in Murphi
C. Norris Ip, David L. Dill
CAV1
1996 State Reduction Using Reversible Rules
abstract
We reduce the state explosion problem in automatic verification of finite-state systems by automatically collapsing subgraphs of the state graph into abstract states. The key idea of the method is to identify state generation rules that can be inverted. It can be used for verification of deadlock-freedom, error and invariant checking and stuttering-invariant CTL model checking. 1 Introduction Formal verification methods that rely on state enumeration are very effective in catching errors in designs. However, such methods suffer from the state explosion problem: the vast number of possibilities cannot be explored within available time and memory. The number of possibilities usually grows exponentially with number of components in the system. Although many techniques (e.g. BDDs [1, 3]) have been developed to tackle the state explosion problem, a lot of practical designs are still too complicated for automatic verification, especially for high level systems or protocols [8]. In this exp...
C. Norris Ip, David L. Dill
DAC1
1996 Better Verification Through Symmetry
C. Norris Ip, David L. Dill
Formal Methods Syst. Des.1
1993 Efficient Verification of Symmetric Concurrent Systems
abstract
Previously (Proc. 11th Symp. on Computer Hardware Description Languages and their Application, April 1993), we proposed a reduction technique based on symmetries to alleviate the state explosion problem in automatic verification of concurrent systems. This paper describes the results of testing the technique on a wide range of algorithms and protocols, including realistic multiprocessor synchronization algorithms and cache coherence protocols. Memory requirements were reduced by amounts ranging from 83% to over 99%, and time requirements were often reduced as well. We also consider the effectiveness of the technique on different types of symmetries, such as symmetries in identical system components and symmetries in data values.>
C. Norris Ip, David L. Dill
ICCD1